LACHHMAN DASS versus JAGAT RAM AND ORS.

LACHHMAN DASS versus JAGAT RAM AND ORS.

A consent decree obtained in a pre-emption suit without impleading the necessary party (appellant, a tenant-turned-owner) is not binding; pre-emption right by consanguinity is unconstitutional; fraud and collusion invalidated the consent decree, and appellant's right to property cannot be taken away without hearing him.

Parties
Appellant: Lachhman Dass; Respondent: Jagat Ram; Respondent: Chander Bala; Respondent: Gurbaksh Kaur; Respondent: Desh Raj; Respondent: Other sons and daughters (Respondent Nos.3 to 7)
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
20 February 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; impugned judgment set aside
Legal Topics
Pre Emption, Right to Property, Consent Decree, Necessary Parties, Fraud on Court
Property Law Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Pre Emption Right to Property Consent Decree Necessary Parties Fraud on Court

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 6 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lachhman Dass

Appellant

Jagat Ram

Respondent

Chander Bala

Respondent

Gurbaksh Kaur

Respondent

Desh Raj

Respondent

Other sons and daughters (Respondent Nos.3 to 7)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a consent decree in a pre-emption suit is binding on a non-impleaded necessary party
  2. 2 Whether right of pre-emption can be claimed by daughter of original owner on basis of consanguinity
  3. 3 Whether fraud or collusion in obtaining consent decree affects its validity

Ratio Decidendi

A consent decree obtained in a pre-emption suit without impleading the necessary party (appellant, a tenant-turned-owner) is not binding; pre-emption right by consanguinity is unconstitutional; fraud and collusion invalidated the consent decree, and appellant's right to property cannot be taken away without hearing him.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; impugned judgment set aside

Orders

  • Respondents to bear cost of appellant; advocate's fee assessed at Rs.5,000/-