INDIRA BAI Vs. NAND KISHORE
LAWS(SC)-1990-9-70
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: RAJASTHAN)
Decided on September 05,1990

INDIRA BAI Appellant
VERSUS
NAND KISHORE Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

RADHA KISHAN LAXMINARAYAN TOSHNIWAL V. SHRIDHAR RAMCHANDRA ALSHI [REFERRED TO]
BISHAN SINGH VS. KHAZAN SINGH [APPROVED]
RADHAKISHAN LAXMINARAYAN TOSHNIWAL VS. SHRIDHAR RAMCHANDRA ALSHI [APPROVED]
ATAM PRAKASH VS. STATE OF HARYANA [APPROVED]
SHALIMAR TAR PRODUCTS LIMITED VS. H C SHARMA [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

ROOPI BAI VS. MAHAVEER [LAWS(RAJ)-1993-3-17] [REFERRED TO]
SATYA NARAYANI VS. HANUMAN PRASAD [LAWS(RAJ)-1998-10-28] [REFERRED]
MATTOO DEVI VS. DAMODAR LAL [LAWS(SC)-2001-7-49] [REFERRED]
SUKHDEVI VS. RAM PIARI [LAWS(P&H)-2014-1-2] [REFERRED TO]
SRI DEVI GAS DISTRIBUTORS VS. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD [LAWS(MAD)-2011-11-93] [REFERRED TO]
S ANAND ALIAS AKASH VS. VANITHA VIJAYA KUMAR [LAWS(MAD)-2011-3-79] [REFERRED TO]
ALLAHABAD BANK WORKERS UNION VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-1994-11-16] [REFERRED TO]
SOVANA DEY VS. TAPABAN DEY [LAWS(CAL)-2022-8-27] [REFERRED TO]
SURENDRA NATH TALUKDAR AND ORS. VS. THE SENIOR REGIONAL MANAGER, FCI AND ORS. [LAWS(GAU)-1991-11-9] [REFERRED TO]
MAHENDRA SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-1999-5-39] [REFERRED]
Priyanka Gogna VS. Union of India [LAWS(DLH)-2003-9-155] [REFERRED TO]
NALIVELA KOMARAIAH VS. GANNU NAGAMANI [LAWS(APH)-1999-7-114] [REFERRED TO]
DEBI RANI PAUL VS. NIRMALA GHOSH [LAWS(CAL)-1998-9-10] [REFERRED TO]
PRAHLAD KUMAR VS. KISHAN CHAND [LAWS(RAJ)-2009-2-61] [REFERRED TO]
PRINCIPAL KALINGA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES KIMS PATIA VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-2010-3-6] [REFERRED TO]
SUBHASHREE SAMANTARAY VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-2010-3-56] [REFERRED TO]
F J IRANI VS. HAJEE SIR ISMAIL WAKF ESTATE [LAWS(MAD)-2010-4-35] [REFERRED TO]
RAJ NARAYAN RAI AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. [LAWS(PAT)-2014-9-92] [REFERRED TO]
RADHA DEVI VS. GODAWARI DEVI [LAWS(RAJ)-1991-11-18] [REFERRED TO]
P. A. RAHIM VS. P. K. RAVINDRAN ALIAS RAVICHANDRAN [LAWS(SC)-2005-10-143] [REFERRED TO]
KALLOLA KU JENA VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-2010-3-55] [REFERRED TO]
MOHINDER SINGH UPPAL VS. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, REVENUE AND SECRETARY TO GOVT [LAWS(P&H)-2014-4-112] [REFERRED TO]
V PRAVEEN VS. TELANGANA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION [LAWS(APH)-2018-8-5] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL SALAM VS. HANS RAJ [LAWS(DLH)-1995-11-42] [REFERRED TO]
RAJIV BAHADUR VS. INDIAN AIRLINES LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-2000-2-138] [REFERRED]
UNITED BANK OF INDIA VS. DEBENDRA NATH ROY CHOUDHURY [LAWS(GAU)-1992-1-7] [REFERRED TO]
S VENEER AND SAW MILLS DIMAPUR VS. STATE OF NAGALAND [LAWS(GAU)-1994-4-7] [FOLLOWED ON]
MANAGEMENT OF DOOM DOOMA INDIA LTD VS. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT [LAWS(GAU)-1994-9-34] [REFERRED TO]
SANTI BHATTACHARYA VS. TAPAS KUMAR BOSE [LAWS(CAL)-2007-3-39] [REFERRED TO]
PRIYANKA GOGNA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2003-9-24] [RELIED ON]
GMR CHHATTISGARH ENERGY LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2015-2-100] [REFERRED TO]
ZAKIR HUSSAIN AND OTHERS VS. KRISHAN LAL [LAWS(J&K)-2018-9-47] [REFERRED TO]
MAHAVIR ICE AND COLD STORAGE (P) LTD. VS. SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA, IPICO HOUSE [LAWS(ORI)-2008-12-57] [REFERRED TO]
D. RAMAKRISHNA AND ORS. VS. D. BALAKRISHNA AND ORS. [LAWS(KAR)-2015-3-257] [REFERRED TO]
RUKMANI DEVI VS. PRABHU NARAYAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2007-5-70] [REFERRED TO]
RAMJI LAL VS. OM PRAKASH [LAWS(RAJ)-2006-7-16] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGING DIRECTOR, TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD. VS. E. HUMAYUN SHERIFF [LAWS(MAD)-2012-12-338] [REFERRED TO]
BHANWAR LAL VS. SHANKAR LAL [LAWS(RAJ)-2000-3-26] [REFERRED TO]
RAMAKRISHNAPPA VS. K.M. ANJINAPPA AND ORS. [LAWS(KAR)-2016-3-132] [REFERRED TO]
A C ANANTHASWAMY VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2006-2-27] [REFERRED TO]
SIDHARTH SRITAM VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-2010-3-45] [REFERRED TO]
PUNYADEO SHARMA VS. ADDITIONAL MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE [LAWS(PAT)-2004-7-1] [REFERRED TO]
BHANU MAHTO VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS. [LAWS(JHAR)-2018-1-184] [REFERRED TO]
RAJ KU PATRA VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-2010-3-47] [REFERRED TO]
GHANSHYAM VS. CHAND BIHARI AND ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2008-2-129] [REFERRED TO]
RADHEY SHYAM VS. VINOD KUMAR [LAWS(RAJ)-2007-2-4] [REFERRED TO]
BOHRU VS. KHUBI [LAWS(P&H)-2010-7-103] [REFERRED TO]
ST JOSEPH EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY KURNOOL VS. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2001-12-91] [REFERRED TO]
ASHIMA J SHAH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GJH)-2001-8-74] [REFERRED]
SARDARMULL KANKARIA VS. CALCUTTA IMPROVEMENT TRUST [LAWS(CAL)-2003-8-26] [REFERRED TO]
SH. SURESH KUMAR SHARMA VS. SH. FATEH BAHADUR SINGH [LAWS(DLH)-2011-3-321] [REFERRED TO]
RAVI KANT VS. BHUPENDER KUMAR [LAWS(HPH)-2007-8-6] [REFERRED TO]
THOMAS P JOHN VS. COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE and TECHNOLOGY [LAWS(KER)-2003-4-15] [REFERRED TO]
ALL INDIA POWER ENGINEER FEDERATION & ORS. VS. SASAN POWER LTD. & ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2016-12-7] [REFERRED TO]
PREMCHAND VS. RAJESHWARI MEGHNANI [LAWS(RAJ)-2013-5-7] [REFERRED TO]
FAKIR CHAND AND ORS. VS. CHANDRA PAL AND ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2015-2-36] [REFERRED TO]
RAGHUNATH VS. RADHA MOHAN [LAWS(SC)-2020-10-20] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAN LAL VS. DWARKA PRASAD [LAWS(RAJ)-2007-2-11] [REFERRED TO]
MADAN LAL VS. JERAM DAS AND ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2012-1-140] [REFERRED TO]
K M MUNIREDDY VS. B K LAKSHMAIAH [LAWS(KAR)-1994-4-6] [REFERRED TO]
ABHILASH CHANDRA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-1997-9-123] [REFERRED TO]
SAMIR KUMAR BAITALIK VS. MRINMOY BAITALIK [LAWS(CAL)-2012-4-81] [REFERRED TO]
URMILA DEVI VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(JHAR)-2014-10-40] [REFERRED TO]
MAFATLAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS. NAVASARI NAGAR PALIKA [LAWS(GJH)-2002-2-95] [REFERRED]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. BINAPANI SAMANTA [LAWS(CAL)-2009-7-49] [REFERRED TO]
Gordhan Singh VS. Abdulji Alamji [LAWS(MPH)-2005-1-134] [REFERRED TO]
HASSAN THERMAL POWER PVT. LTD VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2019-9-116] [REFERRED TO]
GANGA SINGH VS. LRS OF CHHOTU SINGH [LAWS(RAJ)-2012-3-29] [REFERRED TO]
PUNEET MEHTA VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2010-10-459] [REFERRED TO]
PRAVEEN SAHANI VS. SUSHILA DEVI [LAWS(RAJ)-2004-3-15] [REFERRED TO]
V K ELAYALWAR VS. N GOVINDARAJULU [LAWS(MAD)-1993-8-85] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHANLAL VS. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR [LAWS(SC)-1994-2-53] [REFERRED TO]
B L SREEDHAR VS. K M MUNIREDDY [LAWS(SC)-2002-12-49] [REFERRED TO]
T GNANASELVAM VS. K RAJAMMA AND DEVAKI AMMA [LAWS(MAD)-1998-1-87] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

R.M. Sahai, J. - (1.)Is estoppel a good defence to'archaic', AIR 1986 SC 859, Atam Prakash v. State of Haryana, right of preemption which is a'weak right', AIR 1958 SC 838, Bishen Singh v. Khazan Singh, and can be defeated by any 'legitimate' method. AIR 1960 SC 1368, Radha Kishan v. Sridhar.
(2.)Barring High Court of Rajasthan and erstwhile Mewar State, 1947 Mewar Law Reports 36, Jethmal v. Sajanumal, most of the other High Courts, namely, Allahabad, ILR 39 All 127, Naunihal Singh v. Ram Rati Lal, Oudh, AIR 1947 Oudh 81, Ram Rathi v. Mt. Dhiraji, Ajmer, AIR 1952 Ajmer 26, Gopinath v. R. S. Nand Kishore, Bhopal, AIR 1953 Bhopal 26, Abdul Karim v. Babu Lal, and Lahore, AIR 1938 Lab 273, Kanshi Ram Sharma v. Lahori Ram, have answered the issue in the affirmative. The Privy Council, AIR 1929 PC 259, too, applied this principle to non-suit a pre-emptor who knew that the property was in the market for long but offered to purchase only one out of many blocks. It held:
"Assuming that the prior completed purchase by the appellant would under other' circumstances, have given him the right of pre-emption in respect of the blocks in suit, he must be taken by his conduct to have waivea this right, and that it would be inequitable to allow him now to re-assert it."
Even in Muslim Law which is the genesis of this right, as it was unknown to Hindu Law and was brought in wake of Mohammedan Rule, it is settled that the right of pre-emption is lost by estoppel and acquiescence.
(3.)Estoppel is a rule of equity flowing out of fairness striking on behaviour deficient in good faith. It operates a check on spurious conduct by preventing the inducer from taking advantage and assailing forfeiture already accomplished. It is invoked and applied to aid the law in administration of justice. But for it great many injustice may have been perpetrated. Present case is a glaring example of it. True no notice was given by the seller but the trial Court and appellate Court concurred that the pre-emptor not only came to know of the sale immediately but he assisted the purchaser-appellant in raising construction which went on for five months. Having thus persuaded, rather misled, the purchaser by his own conduct that he acquiesced in his ownership he somersaulted to grab the property with constructions by staking his own claim and attempting to unsettle the legal effect of his own conduct by taking recourse to law to curb and control such unwarranted conduct the Courts have extended the broad and paramount considerations of equity, to transactions and assurances, express or implied to avoid injustice.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.