KRISHNA MINOR THROUGH HIS FATHER AND GUARDIAN AND ORS. ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

KRISHNA MINOR THROUGH HIS FATHER AND GUARDIAN AND ORS. ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

Sub-clause 'Fourthly' of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 (as amended in 1960), conferring right of pre-emption on co-sharers, is constitutionally valid and does not violate Articles 14 or 19(1)(f) of the Constitution. Lack of a statutory definition of 'co-sharer' is immaterial as the term is synonymous with 'co-owner'. Both brothers and sisters as Class II heirs share property equally under the Hindu Succession Act, negating discrimination. A person who purchases a co-sharer's interest becomes a co-sharer and is eligible to claim pre-emption.

Parties
Petitioner: Krishna Minor through his father and guardian and others; Respondent: State of Haryana and others
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
12 July 1994
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition (civil) and Civil Appeals / Final Judgment on Merits
Outcome
Petitions and connected appeals dismissed.
Legal Topics
Pre Emption, Co Sharers' Rights, Equality Before Law (article 14), Reasonableness of Restrictions (article 19(1)(f)), Interpretation of Statutes
Property Law Constitutional Law Pre Emption Co Sharers' Rights Equality Before Law (article 14) Reasonableness of Restrictions (article 19(1)(f)) Interpretation of Statutes

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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Krishna Minor through his father and guardian and others

Petitioner

State of Haryana and others

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition (civil) and Civil Appeals / Final Judgment on Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether sub-clause 'Fourthly' of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 (as amended in 1960), which confers right of pre-emption on a co-sharer, is constitutionally valid
  2. 2 Whether the term 'co-sharer' needs to be defined for conferring right of pre-emption
  3. 3 Whether distinguishing between brothers and sisters in claiming pre-emption right under the Act is discriminatory

Ratio Decidendi

Sub-clause 'Fourthly' of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 (as amended in 1960), conferring right of pre-emption on co-sharers, is constitutionally valid and does not violate Articles 14 or 19(1)(f) of the Constitution. Lack of a statutory definition of 'co-sharer' is immaterial as the term is synonymous with 'co-owner'. Both brothers and sisters as Class II heirs share property equally under the Hindu Succession Act, negating discrimination. A person who purchases a co-sharer's interest becomes a co-sharer and is eligible to claim pre-emption.

Court Disposition

Petitions and connected appeals dismissed.

Orders

  • Writ Petitions (C) 386 and 465 of 1991 and connected Civil Appeals 3150 and 3151 of 1991 dismissed as right of pre-emption was claimed by a co-sharer.
  • Writ Petition (C) 1126 of 1991 dismissed as the claimant is a co-sharer.