POCSO Presumption Is Not a Dead Letter, But ‘Sterling Witness’ Test Still Governs Conviction: Bombay High Court High Courts Cannot Routinely Entertain Contempt Petitions Beyond One Year: Madras High Court Declines Contempt Plea Filed After Four Years Courts Cannot Reject Suit by Weighing Evidence at Threshold: Delhi High Court Restores Discrimination Suit by Indian Staff Against Italian Embassy Improvised Testimonies and Dubious Recovery Cannot Sustain Murder Conviction: Allahabad High Court Acquits Two In Murder Case Sale with Repurchase Condition is Not a Mortgage: Bombay High Court Reverses Redemption Decree After 27-Year Delay Second Transfer Application on Same Grounds is Not Maintainable: Punjab & Haryana High Court Clarifies Legal Position under Section 24 CPC Custodial Interrogation Is Not Punitive — Arrest Cannot Be Used as a Tool to Humiliate in Corporate Offence Allegations: Delhi High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail Partnership Act | Eviction Suit by Unregistered Firm Maintainable if Based on Statutory Right: Madhya Pradesh High Court Reasonable Grounds Under Section 37 of NDPS Act Cannot Be Equated with Proof; They Must Reflect More Than Suspicion, But Less Than Conviction: J&K HC Apprehension to Life Is a Just Ground for Transfer When Roots Lie in History of Ideological Violence: Bombay High Court Transfers Defamation Suits Against Hamid Dabholkar, Nikhil Wagle From Goa to Maharashtra Violation of Income Tax Law Doesn’t Void Cheque Bounce Offence: Supreme Court Overrules Kerala HC, Says Section 138 NI Act Stands Independent Overstaying Licensee Cannot Evade Double Damages by Legal Technicalities: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Is Not a Stamp of Truth: Punjab & Haryana High Court Trademark Law Must Protect Reputation, Not Reward Delay Tactics: Bombay High Court Grants Injunction to FedEx Against Dishonest Use of Its Well-Known Mark Commercial Dispute Need Not Wait for a Written Contract: Delhi High Court Upholds Rs.6 Lakh Decree in Rent Recovery Suit Against Storage Defaulter Limitation Begins From Refusal, Not Date of Agreement—Especially When Title Was Under Litigation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sale by Karta of Ancestral Property Without Legal Necessity Is Voidable, Not Void: Madras High Court Dismisses Sons’ Appeal Demand for Gold at 'Chhoochhak' Ceremony Not Dowry – Demand Must Connected With Marriage: Supreme Court Motor Accident Claims Cannot Be Decided on Sympathy – Involvement of Offending Vehicle Must Be Proved: Supreme Court Compassionate Appointment Is Not a Ladder for Career Advancement – It Ends Once Exercised: Supreme Court In Absence of Minimum Fee, Compounding by Revenue Officials Is Not Criminal Misconduct: Kerala High Court Clarifies Power, Quashes FIR Against Two Accused If You’re in Service on 31st March, You Get the Revised Pay: Supreme Court Affirms Right to 2017 Pay Revision for March 2016 Retirees Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court

No right of pre-emption if partition is completed, regardless of drawing an instrument of partition: Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgement, the Supreme Court held that if a partition is completed and the joint status of the parties is severed, the right of pre-emption does not survive, even if an instrument of partition has not been drawn up. The court set aside a judgment of the High Court that had granted the right of pre-emption to the plaintiff in a land dispute case, ruling that the High Court had misinterpreted the Punjab Pre-emption Act and the Land Revenue Act.

The case concerned a dispute over a piece of land in which the plaintiff claimed the right of pre-emption as a co-sharer of the property. The trial court and the appellate court had both ruled that the plaintiff did not possess the status of co-sharer on the date of the decree and that his right of pre-emption had not survived until the date of the passing of the decree. However, the High Court had reversed this decision, holding that no instrument of partition had been drawn up on the date of the passing of the decree and therefore the joint status of the parties had not come to an end.

The Supreme Court, however, found that the provisions of the Punjab Land Revenue Act clearly indicated that when a decision is taken by the Revenue Officer under Section 118 on the question of the property to be divided and the mode of partition, the rights and status of the parties stand decided and the partition is deemed to have completed. The consequential action of preparing the instrument of partition would be only an executory or ministerial act to be carried out to completely dispose of the partition case instituted before the Revenue Officer. The court therefore set aside the High Court's decision and allowed the appeals of the defendants.

JHABBAR SINGH LEGAL HEIRS & ORS.   VS JAGTAR SINGH S/o DARSHAN SINGH

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/12-Jan-2023-Ranvir-vs-State-Crim-Rep-1.pdf"]

Latest Legal News