BISHAN SINGH & OTHERS versus KHAZAN SINGH & ANOTHER

BISHAN SINGH & OTHERS versus KHAZAN SINGH & ANOTHER

Respondents' suit for pre-emption cannot succeed as they did not have a superior right of pre-emption over the appellants, who had been substituted in place of the vendees upon payment of purchase money under decree. The doctrine of lis pendens does not affect a transfer in recognition of a pre-existing and subsisting right; appellants' right was not barred by limitation and was subsisting when they took possession.

Parties
Appellant: Bishan Singh & Others; Respondent: Khazan Singh & Another
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
20 May 1958
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Judgment and Decree of Former Pepsu High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; suit dismissed with costs throughout.
Legal Topics
Pre Emption, Lis Pendens, Punjab Pre Emption Act, Right of Substitution
Property Law Civil Procedure Pre Emption Lis Pendens Punjab Pre Emption Act Right of Substitution

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bishan Singh & Others

Appellant

Khazan Singh & Another

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Judgment and Decree of Former Pepsu High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a second pre-emptor of equal degree can succeed when the first pre-emptor has obtained a decree and possession
  2. 2 Scope of lis pendens in pre-emption suits
  3. 3 Incidents, nature, and exercise of right of pre-emption under Punjab Pre-emption Act

Ratio Decidendi

Respondents' suit for pre-emption cannot succeed as they did not have a superior right of pre-emption over the appellants, who had been substituted in place of the vendees upon payment of purchase money under decree. The doctrine of lis pendens does not affect a transfer in recognition of a pre-existing and subsisting right; appellants' right was not barred by limitation and was subsisting when they took possession.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; suit dismissed with costs throughout.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Suit dismissed with costs throughout.