1996 (1) TMI 458 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case include the substitution of legal representatives of the first respondent, the right of pre-emption under Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, the effect of an amendment to Section 15 of the Act, and the application of the doctrine of estoppel in cases of pre-emption.

Substitution of Legal Representatives:
The respondent had sold land from undivided joint family properties to strangers, leading to a dispute regarding the right of pre-emption under Section 15 of the Act. Despite litigation by the wife and children of the respondent, the sale was upheld. The subsequent sale of the land by the original buyers to the appellant triggered a pre-emption suit by the respondent.

Right of Pre-emption under Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913:
The respondent, as a co-owner, claimed the right of pre-emption over the land purchased by the appellant. The trial court initially dismissed the suit, but on appeal, it was decreed. The High Court upheld the decree, leading to the special leave appeal before the Supreme Court.

Effect of Amendment to Section 15 of the Act:
The appellant argued that the respondent, having sold the property to strangers, lost the right of pre-emption. The Haryana State legislature had amended Section 15, restricting the right of pre-emption to tenants of the vendor's land. The respondent, however, contended that as a co-owner, he was entitled to pre-empt the sale.

Doctrine of Estoppel in Cases of Pre-emption:
The Supreme Court considered the doctrine of estoppel in pre-emption cases, emphasizing that the plaintiff must establish various facts to succeed in the claim. The Court held that the respondent, having sold the land to strangers, could not later claim pre-emption over subsequent sales by the buyers.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court accepted the appellant's argument, ruling that the respondent, by selling the land to strangers, forfeited the right of pre-emption. The Court noted the amendment to Section 15 of the Act, which limited pre-emption rights to tenants. As a result, the appeals were allowed, and the trial court's decision was restored, dismissing the suit for pre-emption.