Right of pre-emption is a weak right - emerges only after the execution of Reg.Sale Deed but not on mere agreement of sale -Mohammedan Law – ss. 226 and 232 – Suit for pre-emption on the ground of vicinage – On the basis of agreement for sale of the suit property – Entertainability of – Held: Suit not entertainable as no cause of action arose to file the suit – Cause of action would arise only when the suit property is actually sold and not when there is merely an agreement to sell – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – s. 54. Pre-emption – Right to pre-emption – Nature of – Held: Such right is a weak right – There are no equities in favour of pre-emptor – Courts can not go out of their way to help the pre-emptor – Equity. In the insant matter, the question for consideration was whether a suit for pre-emption on the ground of vicinage could be entertained when only an agreement for sale has been entered into in respect of the suit property. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 On a plain reading of Sections 226 and 232 of the Mohammedan Law, it is clearly evident that the right of pre-emption can only accrue to an owner of immoveable property when another immoveable property is sold to another person. Section 232 of the Mohammedan Law indicates that sale alone gives rise to pre-emption. In view of the admitted fact that merely an agreement for sale was entered into by appellant No.3 in favour of appellant Nos.1 and 2 in respect of the suit property, the question of exercising any right of pre-emption by the respondents could not arise at all. A suit for pre-emption brought on the basis of such an agreement for sale must be held to be without any cause of action as there was no right of pre-emption in the respondents which could be enforced under the law. [Paras 10 and 11] [233,G-H; 234,D] 1.2 Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act says that a contract for sale does not, of itself, create any interest in or charge on immoveable property. Therefore, where the parties enter into a mere agreement to sell, it creates no interest in the suit property in favour of the vendee and the proprietary title does not validly pass from the vendor to the vendee and until that is completed, no right to enforce pre-emption arises. Therefore, the suit for pre-emption brought on the basis of such an agreement was without any cause of action as there was no right of pre-emption in the respondents which could be enforced under the law. [Para 11] [234,B-D] Radhakishan Laxminarayan Toshniwal, vs. Shridhar Ramchandra Alshi and Ors. AIR 1960 SC 1368 – referred to. 1.3 If ultimately the sale deed is executed, it would be open for the respondents to apply for pre-emption of the suit property, provided that under the law they are permitted to maintain the suit for pre-emption. [Para 15] [235,E] 2. There are no equities in favour of a pre-emptor, whose sole object is to disturb a valid transaction by virtue of the rights created in him by statute. It would be open to the pre-emptee, to defeat the law of pre-emption by any legitimate means, which is not fraud on the part of either the vendor or the vendee and a person is entitled to steer clear of the law of pre-emption by all lawful means. The right of pre-emption is a weak right and is not looked upon with favour by courts and therefore the courts cannot go out of their way to help the pre-emptor. -2015 SC(2008)msklawreports



Right of pre-emption is a weak right - emerges only after the execution of Reg.Sale Deed but not on mere agreement of sale -Mohammedan Law – ss. 226 and 232 – Suit for pre-emption on the ground of vicinage – On the basis of agreement for sale of the suit property – Entertainability of – Held: Suit not entertainable as no cause of action arose to file the suit – Cause of action would arise only when the suit property is actually sold and not when there is merely an agreement to sell – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – s. 54. Pre-emption – Right to pre-emption – Nature of – Held: Such right is a weak right – There are no equities in favour of pre-emptor – Courts can not go out of their way to help the pre-emptor – Equity. In the insant matter, the question for consideration was whether a suit for pre-emption on the ground of vicinage could be entertained when only an agreement for sale has been entered into in respect of the suit property. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 On a plain reading of Sections 226 and 232 of the Mohammedan Law, it is clearly evident that the right of pre-emption can only accrue to an owner of immoveable property when another immoveable property is sold to another person. Section 232 of the Mohammedan Law indicates that sale alone gives rise to pre-emption. In view of the admitted fact that merely an agreement for sale was entered into by appellant No.3 in favour of appellant Nos.1 and 2 in respect of the suit property, the question of exercising any right of pre-emption by the respondents could not arise at all. A suit for pre-emption brought on the basis of such an agreement for sale must be held to be without any cause of action as there was no right of pre-emption in the respondents which could be enforced under the law. [Paras 10 and 11] [233,G-H; 234,D] 1.2 Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act says that a contract for sale does not, of itself, create any interest in or charge on immoveable property. Therefore, where the parties enter into a mere agreement to sell, it creates no interest in the suit property in favour of the vendee and the proprietary title does not validly pass from the vendor to the vendee and until that is completed, no right to enforce pre-emption arises. Therefore, the suit for pre-emption brought on the basis of such an agreement was without any cause of action as there was no right of pre-emption in the respondents which could be enforced under the law. [Para 11] [234,B-D] Radhakishan Laxminarayan Toshniwal, vs. Shridhar Ramchandra Alshi and Ors. AIR 1960 SC 1368 – referred to. 1.3 If ultimately the sale deed is executed, it would be open for the respondents to apply for pre-emption of the suit property, provided that under the law they are permitted to maintain the suit for pre-emption. [Para 15] [235,E] 2. There are no equities in favour of a pre-emptor, whose sole object is to disturb a valid transaction by virtue of the rights created in him by statute. It would be open to the pre-emptee, to defeat the law of pre-emption by any legitimate means, which is not fraud on the part of either the vendor or the vendee and a person is entitled to steer clear of the law of pre-emption by all lawful means. The right of pre-emption is a weak right and is not looked upon with favour by courts and therefore the courts cannot go out of their way to help the pre-emptor. -2015 SC(2008)msklawreports

Popular posts from this blog

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 read with Rule 9(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Rules of 1989. - Powers of Revenue Court - Petitioners are the legal heirs of Late Sri A. Penta Reddy and respondents 1 to 3 are the brothers of Penta Reddy - Petitioners claimed as Separate Property - Brothers/Respondents claimed as Joint family Property - MRO held summary enquiry and held that it is Joint family Property - No Appeal to RDO - after the lapse of 12 years filed Revision directly to Joint Collector - JC. dismissed the revision - this Writ - Their Lordships held that in the absence of any suit for Declaration of title after receiving Rule 9 notice with in 3 months, the MRO can decide the dispute summarily - since no appeal is filed nor any suit is filed in any court - the orders of MRO can not be challanged after the lapse of 12 years - dismissed the revision - -2015 Telangana & A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS

DVC CASE - Practice & Procedure - Magistrate shall issue a notice of the date of hearing fixed under Sec.12-the Magistrate need not, nay shall not issue warrant for securing presence of respondent - the Court need not insist for personal attendance of the parties for each adjournment like in criminal cases.-if the respondents failed to turn up after receiving notice and file their counter affidavit if any,pass an exparte order by virtue of the power conferred on him under Sec.23 of the D.V.Act.-only under exceptional circumstances, if the Magistrate feels required, he may issue warrants for securing the presence of the concerned party. -2015 A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS( Telegana)