Supreme Court Dismisses Defendants' Appeal in Pre-emption Suit, Upholding Tenant's Right to Purchase Urban Immovable Property. The Court Held That a Notification Exempting Sale of Land in Municipal Areas Under Section 8(2) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 Did Not Apply to Urban Immovable Property (Rolling Mill), and the Suit Was Within Limitation Under the Limitation Act, 1963.

  • 2
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The dispute arose from a suit for pre-emption filed by the respondents (plaintiffs) against the appellants (defendants) concerning a plot measuring 719 square yards at Light Railway Bazar, Jagadhri. The respondents, claiming to be tenants since 1949, sought to exercise their right of pre-emption under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 after the property was sold to the appellants via a registered sale-deed dated 25.01.1983. They offered to pay the same sale consideration of ₹43,000. The Trial Court decreed the suit on 27.05.1989, subject to payment of ₹50,238 to the vendee after deductions, and this decision was upheld by the lower Appellate Court and the High Court. The appellants challenged the concurrent findings, arguing that a notification dated 08.10.1985 issued under Section 8(2) of the 1913 Act exempted sale of land in municipal areas from pre-emption, and since the property was within Jagadhri's municipal limits, the right did not exist when the Trial Court decreed the suit. They also contended the suit was time-barred as it was filed on 25.01.1984, one year after the sale-deed registration on 25.01.1983, and that evidence on custom for the extended area was insufficient. The respondents countered that the notification applied only to 'land', not 'urban immovable property' like the rolling mill in question, and the suit was within limitation as the date of registration is excluded under Section 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The court analyzed the definitions in the 1913 Act, noting that 'urban immovable property' excludes agricultural land and vests pre-emption rights in tenants under Section 16. It referred to the Punjab Alienation of Land Act, 1900, where 'land' is defined as not occupied by buildings and used for agricultural purposes, distinguishing it from the constructed rolling mill. The court held that the notification did not apply to the property, as it was urban immovable property, not agricultural land. On limitation, it found the appellants did not seriously contest the issue, and the suit was filed within the one-year period excluding the registration date. The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the tenant's right to pre-emption and the decree for possession.

Headnote

A) Property Law - Pre-emption - Right of Pre-emption - Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, Sections 3, 8, 16 - Respondents claimed to be tenants since 1949 and filed suit for pre-emption after property was sold to appellants - Court examined whether notification exempting sale of land in municipal areas applied to urban immovable property - Held that notification did not apply as property was urban immovable property (rolling mill), not agricultural land, and right vested in tenant under Section 16 (Paras 4-9, 11-12).

B) Property Law - Pre-emption - Limitation - Limitation Act, 1963, Schedule, Section 12 - Appellants argued suit filed on 25.01.1984 was time-barred as sale-deed registered on 25.01.1983 and limitation period is one year - Court noted appellants did not press issue seriously before lower courts - Held that under Section 12, date of registration is excluded, making suit within limitation (Paras 6-7).

C) Property Law - Pre-emption - Existence of Right - Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 - Appellants relied on Constitution Bench judgment requiring right to exist on date of registration, filing, and decree - Court accepted legal proposition but found notification did not extinguish right as property was urban immovable property, not covered by exemption (Paras 5, 9).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the notification dated 08.10.1985 issued under Section 8(2) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 exempting sale of land in municipal areas from pre-emption applies to the sale of urban immovable property (rolling mill) in the present case, and whether the suit was barred by limitation

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Appeal dismissed, upholding the decree for possession in favor of respondents

Law Points

  • Right of pre-emption must exist on date of registration of sale-deed
  • filing of suit
  • and decree by first court
  • Notification under Section 8(2) of Punjab Pre-emption Act
  • 1913 exempting sale of land in municipal areas does not apply to urban immovable property
  • Tenant has preferential right to purchase urban immovable property under Section 16 of Punjab Pre-emption Act
  • 1913
  • Limitation period for pre-emption suit is one year from date of registration of sale-deed excluding date of registration under Section 12 of Limitation Act
  • 1963
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2024 LawText (SC) (2) 13

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2024 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.18612 of 2015)

2024-02-06

Rajesh Bindal

JAGMOHAN AND ANOTHER

BADRI NATH AND OTHERS

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Suit for possession by pre-emption of property

Remedy Sought

Respondents sought possession of property by pre-emption

Filing Reason

Respondents claimed right of pre-emption as tenants after property was sold to appellants

Previous Decisions

Trial Court decreed suit on 27.05.1989, upheld by lower Appellate Court and High Court

Issues

Whether notification dated 08.10.1985 exempting sale of land in municipal areas applies to urban immovable property Whether the suit was barred by limitation

Submissions/Arguments

Appellants argued notification extinguished right of pre-emption and suit was time-barred Respondents argued notification did not apply to urban immovable property and suit was within limitation

Ratio Decidendi

Notification under Section 8(2) of Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 exempting sale of land in municipal areas does not apply to urban immovable property as defined in the Act, and right of pre-emption vests in tenant under Section 16; suit was within limitation as date of registration of sale-deed is excluded under Section 12 of Limitation Act, 1963

Judgment Excerpts

The defendants are before this Court challenging the concurrent findings of fact recorded by all the courts below. The respondents filed the suit exercising their right of pre-emption of the sale claiming that in terms of the provisions of the 1913 Act, they had preferential right to purchase the property. In terms of the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Shyam Sunder and others v. Ram Kumar and another, the right of pre-emption has to exist on the date of registration of the sale-deed, on the date of filing of suit and also on the date the same is decreed by the first Court. The Schedule attached to the 1963 Act provides for a period of one year for filing of suit for pre-emption. If the same is read along with Section 12 of the aforesaid Act, in terms of which the date of registration of sale deed is to be excluded, the suit filed by the respondents was within limitation. The right to the respondents flows from Section 16 of the 1913 Act which provides that right of pre-emption in respect of urban immovable property vests in the tenant.

Procedural History

Suit filed on 25.01.1984, Trial Court decreed on 27.05.1989, upheld by lower Appellate Court and High Court, appeal to Supreme Court

Acts & Sections

  • Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913: Sections 3(1), 3(2), 3(3), 8, 15, 16
  • Limitation Act, 1963: Section 12
  • Punjab Alienation of Land Act, 1900: Section 2(3)
  • General Clauses Act, 1897: Section 3(26)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Defendants' Appeal in Pre-emption Suit, Upholding Tenant's Right to Purchase Urban Immovable Property. The Court Held That a Notification Exempting Sale of Land in Municipal Areas Under Section 8(2) of the Punjab Pre-emption A...
Related Judgement
High Court High Court Quashes GST Seizure Orders and Directs Release of Cash with Interest in Writ Petition. Seizure of INR 1 Crore Held Illegal as Cash Not Covered Under Section 67(2) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Due to Lack of 'Reasons to Belie...