AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
5 paragraphs · 202 wordsG.C. Mital, J. (Oral)
Ved Pal claimed preemption on the ground that he was father''s brother''s son of the vendor as well as cosharer. The trial Court decreed the suit after recording finding on both matters in favour of the preemptor. On vendee''s appeal the lower appellate Court in view of Atam Parkash v. State of Haryana, A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 859 : 1987 RRR 116 did not uphold the decree of preemption on the ground of relationship but upheld the decree as a cosharer. This is vendee''s appeal.
It is beyond dispute that the right of preemption as a cosharer falls in section 15(1)(b) `FOURTHLY'' and in view of Jagdish and other v. Nathi Mal Kejriwal and others, A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 68 : 1987 RRR 65 even as cosharer such a relation cannot preempt.
For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is allowed and after setting aside the judgment and decree of the two Courts below the suit for preemption is dismissed with no order as to costs.
In view of the above, CM Nos. 2242 and 2243C 1/1986 have become infructuous and are dismissed as such. The preempter would be entitled to return of the amount deposited.