BHIKHA RAM versus RAM SARUP AND ORS.

BHIKHA RAM versus RAM SARUP AND ORS.

The Supreme Court held that after striking down the preceding consanguinity-based clauses of Section 15(1)(b), the 'other co-sharers' clause should be read as including all co-sharers, including those formerly excluded as kinsfolk, if they are co-sharers. The right of pre-emption is valid for all co-sharers and not restricted by the previous unconstitutional classification.

Parties
Appellant: Bhikha Ram; Respondents: Ram Sarup and Others
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
31 October 1991
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appellate Decision; Appeal by Special Leave From Punjab & Haryana High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed.
Legal Topics
Pre Emption, Statutory Interpretation, Legislative Intention, Constitutional Validity
Property Law Constitutional Law Pre Emption Statutory Interpretation Legislative Intention Constitutional Validity

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bhikha Ram

Appellant

Ram Sarup and Others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appellate Decision; Appeal by Special Leave From Punjab & Haryana High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether 'other co-sharers' in Section 15(1)(b) Fourthly of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 includes kinsfolk co-sharers.
  2. 2 Whether previous interpretation in Jagdish & Ors. v. Nathi Mal Kejriwal & Ors. was correct after certain clauses of Section 15(1)(b) were struck down as unconstitutional.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that after striking down the preceding consanguinity-based clauses of Section 15(1)(b), the 'other co-sharers' clause should be read as including all co-sharers, including those formerly excluded as kinsfolk, if they are co-sharers. The right of pre-emption is valid for all co-sharers and not restricted by the previous unconstitutional classification.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed.

Orders

  • Decision of all three lower courts dismissing the appellant’s suit is set aside; the suit is decreed.
  • Appellant to deposit the entire sale price and stamp duty within three months; Respondent No. 1 to execute conveyance within one month of deposit; possession to be delivered to appellant.