Esheria India Case Law
Sign in
India Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

India Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
0 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter India case law

Results update automatically as you type.

India decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Property law

JAGMOHAN AND ANOTHER versus BADRI NATH AND OTHERS

The notification dated 08.10.1985, issued under Section 8(2) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, exempts only 'land' within municipal areas and does not extend to 'immovable property' (which includes constructed property such as a rolling mill). Because the transaction was sale of an urban immovable property occupied by tenants, the notification does not extinguish the tenants' right of pre-emption under Section 16 of the 1913 Act; the appeal was therefore dismissed and the concurrent findings of the courts below upholding the tenants' pre-emption rights were affirmed.

Source excerpt

  • Pre-emption
  • Exemption of pre-emption
  • Right of pre-emption
  • Limitation
  • Urban immovable property
  • Distinction between land and immovable property
Read case analysis
Land reform

ABDUL MATIN MALLICK versus SUBRATA BHATTACHARJEE (BANERJEE) AND ORS.

Because the pre-emptors did not deposit the entire sale consideration with the additional 10% required by Section 8 when filing the pre-emption application, the application was not maintainable; the High Court was not justified in permitting deposit of the balance at the revision stage, and therefore the appellate and High Court orders allowing/precluding set-aside and the pre-emption application is dismissed.

Source excerpt

  • Pre-emption
  • Maintainability of pre-emption application
  • Deposit requirement under section 8 and inquiry under section 9
Read case analysis
Property law

RAGHUNATH (D) BY LRS. versus RADHA MOHAN (D) THR. LRS & ORS.

The right of pre-emption is exercisable only once when the cause of that right first arises after the Rajasthan Pre-Emption Act, 1966 became operative; Section 9 operates as a bar to the same pre-emptor exercising the right anew in respect of subsequent transactions relating to the same immovable property, and therefore the suit claiming pre-emption over the 21.01.1974 sale was barred by limitation because the original plaintiff did not challenge the earlier sale dated 05.11.1966.

Source excerpt

  • Pre-emption
  • Limitation period under article 97 limitation act, 1963
  • Right of substitution
  • Waiver and estoppel
  • Sections 3, 6, 8, 9 and 21 rajasthan pre-emption act, 1966
Read case analysis
Property law

BARASAT EYE HOSPITAL & ORS. versus KAUSTABH MONDAL

Pre-emption right under West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 is triggered only upon deposit of full stated consideration plus 10% with the application; partial deposit does not activate the right, and courts cannot grant extension to deposit the balance after the stipulated time; on failure, the applicant is entitled to refund of deposit with accrued interest, if any.

Source excerpt

  • Pre-emption
  • Deposit requirement for pre-emption
  • Interpretation of statutory provisions
Read case analysis
Civil procedure

VIJAY SINGH versus SHANTI DEVI AND ANR.

Once an ex-parte decree is set aside on grounds of non-service, it becomes non-est and cannot govern rights of parties. The only operative decree is the one passed after contest by the trial court. Since law was amended prior to that, and the plaintiff no longer had a right of pre-emption, the suit was rightly dismissed.

Source excerpt

  • Ex-parte decree
  • Pre-emption
  • Restitution
  • Setting aside decree
  • Limitation
Read case analysis
Property law

PIRTHI versus MOHAN SINGH & ORS.

Since the Amendment Act came into force during the pendency of the suit, and the appellant/pre-emptor did not have the right to pre-empt on the date of passing of the decree by the court of first instance, the suit was rightly dismissed by all lower courts including the High Court. The Haryana Amendment Act 10 of 1995 is not retrospective, but the pre-emptor must have the right on all three relevant dates, and the appellant lost such right by virtue of the amendment before decree.

Source excerpt

  • Pre-emption
  • Retrospective operation of amendments
  • Co-sharer rights
  • Punjab pre-emption act, 1913
  • Haryana amendment act, 1995
Read case analysis
Succession law

K. NAINA MOHAMED (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. versus A.M. VASUDEVAN CHETTIAR (D) BY LRS. & ORS.

Restriction in the Will for sale among male heirs and not to strangers is valid, constitutes a right of pre-emption, and does not violate rule against perpetuity. Purchaser who violated this restriction cannot challenge the validity of the restriction. Appeal did not abate as purchaser represented the estate; restriction in Will is enforceable.

Source excerpt

  • Rule against perpetuity
  • Execution of will
  • Life interest
  • Restriction on alienation
  • Pre-emption
  • Abatement of appeal
Read case analysis
Land law

SURESH PRASAD SINGH versus DULHIN PHULKUMARI DEVI AND ORS.

The appellant, being a co-sharer as evidenced by public survey records and having lodged an application within the statutory time along with required deposit, is entitled to statutory pre-emption under s.16(3). The authorities erred in relying on sale deeds and equity considerations rather than statutory mandate; long lapse does not defeat a claim lawfully made. Boundary raiyat status of the respondent does not defeat co-sharer’s statutory right where adjoining status is acquired after the disputed transfer.

Source excerpt

  • Pre-emption
  • Co-sharer rights
  • Bihar land reforms
  • Land ceiling
  • Partition
Read case analysis
Property law

JAI SINGH & ORS. versus GURMEJ SINGH

Sale by co-owner of specific portion from joint holding is a sale of a share out of the joint holding and is pre-emptible under Section 15(1)(b) of Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913.

Source excerpt

  • Pre-emption
  • Co-ownership
  • Joint property
  • Partition
Read case analysis
Property law

KUMAR GONSUSAB & ORS. versus SRI MOHAMMED MIYAN URF SABAN & ORS.

Suit for pre-emption based upon an agreement to sell, and not an executed sale deed, is not maintainable in law as no cause of action arises; under Mohammedan law and the Transfer of Property Act, pre-emption arises only from a completed sale, not from an agreement to sell.

Source excerpt

  • Pre-emption
  • Agreement to sell
  • Vicinage
  • Cause of action
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

India decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.