KARNAIL SINGH versus ANIL KUMAR AND ANR.

KARNAIL SINGH versus ANIL KUMAR AND ANR.

Respondent, being not a party to the sale transaction and a co-sharer as evidenced, is entitled to pre-emption under s.15(1)(b)(iv) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913.

Parties
Appellant: Karnail Singh; Respondent: Anil Kumar; Respondent: Prem Malhotra
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
10 January 1995
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave Dismissed by Supreme Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Pre Emption, Co Sharer Rights, Punjab Pre Emption Act, Constitutional Validity
Property Law Constitutional Law Pre Emption Co Sharer Rights Punjab Pre Emption Act 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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Karnail Singh

Appellant

Anil Kumar

Respondent

Prem Malhotra

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave Dismissed by Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondent is entitled to pre-emption as 'other co-sharer' under Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 s.15(1)(b)(iv)
  2. 2 Whether clauses (i) to (iii) of s.15(1)(b) as amended are ultra vires Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution

Ratio Decidendi

Respondent, being not a party to the sale transaction and a co-sharer as evidenced, is entitled to pre-emption under s.15(1)(b)(iv) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • No costs.