RAM SARAN LALL THE STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. DOMINI KUER:MST DOMINI KUER
LAWS(SC)-1961-4-57
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PATNA)
Decided on
April 27,1961
RAM SARAN LAL,STATE OF PUNJAB
Appellant
VERSUS
DOMINI KUER
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
ABDUL JALAL VS. MARIYA FINANCIERS [LAWS(KER)-2002-2-12] [REFERRED TO]KAILASH CHAND JAIN VS. STATE OF ORISSA AND 4 ORS. [LAWS(ORI)-2008-9-86] [REFERRED TO]
A JITENDERNATH VS. JUBILEE HILLS COOP HOUSE BLD SOC [LAWS(SC)-2006-5-112] [REFERRED TO]
H.R. NAGENDRA PRASAD VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, TUMKUR DISTRICT AND ORS. [LAWS(KAR)-2016-1-166] [REFERRED TO]
SHEIKH MOHAMMAD RAFIQ VS. KHALILUL REHMAN [LAWS(SC)-1972-5-13] [REFERRED]
KOKA DEVI VS. SARJOO DEVI [LAWS(RAJ)-1985-5-10] [REFERRED TO]
SHEO KUMAR YADEV VS. ADDITIONAL MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE [LAWS(PAT)-1983-5-21] [REFERRED TO]
JAYANTA KUMAR JANA AND ANOTHER VS. MINA RANI PANJA [LAWS(CAL)-2016-2-94] [REFERRED TO]
HIRANMOY BHATTACHRJEE VS. GOPAL CHANDRA GHOSH [LAWS(CAL)-2015-3-148] [REFERRED TO]
YOGESH KUMAR MALIK VS. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED & ANR [LAWS(DLH)-2018-4-347] [REFERRED TO]
PREM PRAKASH GUPTA VS. SANJAY AGGARWAL [LAWS(DLH)-2018-1-361] [REFERRED TO]
RANGALAL MONDAL VS. SUDARSAN BURMAN [LAWS(CAL)-1988-8-48] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA CHANDRA PRAMANIK VS. HARI SADAN SAHANA [LAWS(CAL)-1981-9-18] [REFERRED TO]
MAHABIR METAL WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-1973-12-18] [REFERRED]
KRISHNA CERAMICS AND REFRACTORIES VS. V S KRISHNA CERAMICS AND POTTERIES [LAWS(APH)-2000-8-83] [REFERRED TO]
KANJI RAVARIA VS. ANIS ISMAIL KHOJA [LAWS(BOM)-2022-6-231] [REFERRED TO]
MST. HAMJARUN NESSA VS. MST. WARICHUN NESSA [LAWS(TRIP)-2016-11-10] [REFERRED TO]
SWARAN LATA VS. P P SHARMA [LAWS(DLH)-2005-8-30] [REFERRED TO]
DHANPATO DEVI KUER VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2018-2-120] [REFERRED TO]
THAKUR KISHAN SINGH DEAD VS. ARVIND KUMAR [LAWS(SC)-1994-9-113] [RELIED ON]
BHAGWATI PRASAD SAH VS. BHAGWATI PRASAD SAH [LAWS(SC)-1963-10-23] [REFERRED TO]
MILKHA SINGH VS. TARA SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-1972-11-19] [REFERRED TO]
S ARUNACHALAM ASARI VS. SIVAN PERUMAL ASARI [LAWS(MAD)-1968-8-1] [REFERRED TO]
Commissioner of Gift tax Chennai VS. Shree Shyam Sayee Corporation [LAWS(MAD)-2004-4-47] [REFERRED TO]
EXPORT CREDIT GUARANTEE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. VS. T.MATHEW [LAWS(BOM)-2014-3-17] [REFERRED TO]
EXPORT CREDIT GUARANTEE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. VS. T.MATHEW [LAWS(BOM)-2014-3-17] [REFERRED TO]
INDUS GENE EXPRESSIONS LIMITED VS. STATE OF A.P. [LAWS(APH)-2024-5-24] [REFERRED TO]
DIVVI SURYANARAYANA MURTHY VS. COMPETENT AUTHORITY IAC [LAWS(APH)-1976-11-23] [REFERRED TO]
CHETRARM VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2024-10-39] [REFERRED TO]
GOUTAM DAS VS. NIRBHOY CHANDRA CHOWDHURY [LAWS(CAL)-2006-2-68] [REFERRED TO]
MOHD. ALIM VS. TAHIR HUSAIN [LAWS(ALL)-2020-1-343] [REFERRED TO]
GAUSUL AZAM VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-2-213] [REFERRED TO]
SHAW WALLACE AND COMPANY LIMITED VS. SHIVARPAN SALES P LIMITED [LAWS(CAL)-2001-2-35] [REFERRED]
HEM SINGH VS. SHAKUNTLA DEVI [LAWS(HPH)-2014-9-14] [REFERRED TO]
DIVVI SURYANARAYANA MURTHY VS. COMPETENT AUTHORITY [LAWS(APH)-1975-7-8] [REFERRED TO]
NARAIN DASS VS. RULDU RAM [LAWS(P&H)-1979-5-51] [REFERRED]
KAILASH CHANDRA VS. GYARSI DEVI [LAWS(RAJ)-1986-8-27] [REFERRED TO]
RAMDEO VS. DY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION U P LUCKNOW [LAWS(ALL)-1966-8-3] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KERALA VS. GEORGE JACOB [LAWS(KER)-2005-10-4] [REFERRED TO]
PURTABPORE COMPANY LTD VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-1976-11-16] [REFERRED TO]
SH. PREM LAL BHAMBRA SON OF GOPAL DASS VS. SH. KHEM CHAND SON OF LATE SH. PREM DUTT AND ANOTHER [LAWS(HPH)-2016-9-290] [REFERRED TO]
HAR NARAIN VS. MAM CHAND [LAWS(SC)-2010-10-90] [REFERRED TO]
R K MILLEN & COMPANY (INDIA) PVT LTD & ORS VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS [LAWS(CAL)-2017-10-35] [REFERRED TO]
RAM ADHAR VS. BOARD OF REVENUE U P [LAWS(ALL)-1984-1-43] [REFERRED TO]
NARINDER SINGH VS. STATE OF H.P. [LAWS(HPH)-2003-5-24] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. NEMAI CHAND KUNDU [LAWS(CAL)-1978-3-18] [REFERRED TO]
BABUPOOJARY VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MANGALORE [LAWS(KAR)-1995-4-16] [REFERRED TO]
NIRMAL KUMAR JAIN VS. A MOHAMMED NOOR [LAWS(KAR)-2010-3-74] [REFERRED TO]
NEELAMSETTI KATAJI RAO VS. REGATI RAMARAJU [LAWS(APH)-2001-3-24] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. NIMAI CHAND KUNDU [LAWS(CAL)-1978-1-33] [REFERRED TO]
PREM NARAIN VS. MAHABIR JAIN [LAWS(ALL)-2018-5-6] [REFERRED TO]
Rashid Ahmad VS. Nazar Mohammad and others [LAWS(UTN)-2008-11-14] [REFERRED TO]
KANWAR RAJ SINGH (D) VS. GEJO. (D) [LAWS(SC)-2024-1-1] [REFERRED TO]
MANI RAM MAJOR AND OTHERS VS. DHARAM SINGH AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-1973-5-16] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRIKA SINGH VS. ARVIND KUMAR SINGH [LAWS(SC)-2006-5-50] [REFERRED TO]
HARNAM SINGH VS. AMAR SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2020-5-62] [REFERRED TO]
CHERICHI VS. ITTIANAM [LAWS(KER)-2000-12-14] [REFERRED]
RADHE SHARMA S/O LATE JAGDEO SHARMA VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2009-7-62] [REFERRED TO]
BANK OF MAHARASHTRA VS. BAGWE UDYOG LTD [LAWS(BOM)-2007-6-27] [REFERRED TO]
RAM BRIKSH VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-1993-2-8] [REFERRED TO]
SUDAMA DEVI VS. RAJENDRA SINGH [LAWS(PAT)-1972-9-19] [REFERRED TO]
THAKAR SINGH VS. RAM SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-1971-5-41] [REFERRED]
KUNJ BEHARI LAL VS. KEWAL CHAND [LAWS(RAJ)-2022-9-74] [REFERRED TO]
MARCELLIN MARI CHRISTIAN VS. K. RAJENDIRAN [LAWS(MAD)-2024-6-20] [REFERRED TO]
LALA DEVI DAYAL BHOO SEWA TRUST VS. PREM CHAND [LAWS(P&H)-2005-1-4] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNASWAMI PILLAI VS. LAKSHMANAN PILLAI [LAWS(KER)-1996-11-31] [REFERRED TO]
V Srinivasan VS. Commissioner of Gift tax TamilNadu V [LAWS(MAD)-2004-4-83] [REFERRED TO]
NURUL ISLAM MAZARBHUIYA AND ORS. VS. SAHAB UDDIN CHOUDHURY [LAWS(GAU)-2015-9-66] [REFERRED TO]
MAHENDRA KAR VS. BABUL KUMAR GHOSH [LAWS(GAU)-2000-9-14] [REFERRED TO]
KAMAL DEV VS. DIRECTOR AYURVEDA [LAWS(HPH)-2014-9-20] [REFERRED TO]
RAM SARAN LALL VS. MST. DOMINI KUER [LAWS(CAL)-2016-10-11] [REFERRED TO]
DARBAR SHIVRAJKUMAR VS. COMMISSIONER OF GIFT TAX [LAWS(GJH)-1981-4-24] [REFERRED TO]
AZEEZULLA SHERIFF alias ANWAR PASHA VS. BHABHUTHIMUL [LAWS(KAR)-1972-6-29] [REFERRED TO]
RADHA RAMAN MAHAPATRA & ORS. VS. GANGADHAR BERA & ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-1988-8-45] [REFERRED TO]
BALWANT RAI VS. RAM GOPAL [LAWS(P&H)-1971-7-1] [REFERRED TO]
LRS OF GAFOOR KHAN AND ORS VS. AMIRUDDIN AND ORS [LAWS(RAJ)-2014-1-308] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KERALA VS. ALL KERALA DOCUMENTS WRITERS [LAWS(KER)-2005-10-11] [REFERRED TO]
NOORUNNISA AND ANOTHER VS. AJMATH BIVI AND OTHERS [LAWS(MAD)-2019-4-205] [REFERRED TO]
RAVIPUDI LAKSHMINARAYANA VS. PARVATHAREDDY SREEDHAR [LAWS(APH)-2021-10-59] [REFERRED TO]
RAMCHANDRA ESTATE DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CO. (P) LTD. VS. JOINT [LAWS(BOM)-2010-10-259] [REFERRED TO]
AMIT BEGWANI VS. RANU PARUI [LAWS(CAL)-2024-1-36] [REFERRED TO]
CHATURBHUJ SHARMA VS. DURGA DAYAL [LAWS(ALL)-1974-8-2] [REFERRED TO]
MAHFOOZ ALI KHAN VS. MOHAMMED AHSAN [LAWS(ALL)-1979-5-3] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRA KUMAR VS. RAMESHWAR DASS MITTAL [LAWS(ALL)-1981-7-38] [REFERRED TO]
SWARAN LATA VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2005-8-5] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF GIFT TAX VS. ALOKA LATA SETT [LAWS(CAL)-1989-7-42] [REFERRED TO]
KEDARNATH PANCHADHOYEE AND OTHERS VS. NAGENDRA NATH MAHAPATRA AND OTHERS [LAWS(CAL)-1980-3-47] [REFERRED TO]
BALESHWAR SHARMA VS. NAGESHWAR PANDEY [LAWS(DLH)-2018-8-617] [REFERRED TO]
BALESHWAR SHARMA VS. NAGESHWAR PANDEY [LAWS(DLH)-2017-1-80] [REFERRED TO]
RAVINDRA NATTHUJI DHOB VS. MAHARASHTRA REVENUE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR [LAWS(BOM)-2018-6-260] [REFERRED TO]
RAM CHAND VS. RAJINDER KAUR [LAWS(P&H)-1972-7-23] [REFERRED]
PURI CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(DLH)-1997-7-66] [REFERRED]
V M RAO VS. PARAMESWARI AMMAL [LAWS(MAD)-1987-3-11] [REFERRED TO]
JAMUNA PRASAD VS. BHUNESHWAR [LAWS(PAT)-1986-9-1] [REFERRED TO]
MAHARANI YOGESHWARI KUMARI VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [LAWS(RAJ)-1994-7-18] [REFERRED TO]
Thakur Kishan Singh VS. Arvind Kumar [LAWS(MPH)-1994-9-62] [REFERRED TO]
A. GOTHAMCHAND ABD OTHERS VS. SHRIRAM CHITS & INVESTMENTS (P) LIMITED [LAWS(MAD)-2022-3-176] [REFERRED TO]
PARTHAS TRUST VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [LAWS(KER)-1987-7-77] [REFERRED TO]
ARUN PRASAD MONDAL VS. KARTICK GOSWAMI [LAWS(CAL)-2014-7-31] [REFERRED TO]
BHUBAN CHANDRA SAMANTA VS. JAMINI BHUSAN KAR [LAWS(CAL)-1970-3-10] [REFERRED TO]
RATHNAKAR VS. H S MADHAVA RAO [LAWS(KAR)-1990-11-52] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)The parties to this litigation are all Hindus but it is not in dispute that the Mohammedan law of pre-emption is applicable to them by custom, nor that the appellants had a right of pre-emption. The only question is whether the first demand called talab-i-mowasibat which has to be made after the completion of the sale in order that the right may be enforced, was made before or after such completion. The making of the demand is not in dispute but the dispute is as to when the sale was completed.
(2.)The appellants had their residential house contiguous to the house owned by certain persons whom we may call Pandeys. On January 31, 1946, the Pandeys executed a deed of sale in favour of the respondent purchaser in respect of their aforesaid house. The appellants claim a right of pre-emption on account of this sale. The consideration mentioned in the deed was Rs. 2,000/-. There was a subsisting mortgage on that house and the deed provided that out of the consideration a sum of Rs. 200/- would be left with the respondent purchaser for clearing off that mortgage. The deed also recited that the Pandeys had received Rs. 400/- and
"the remaining Rs. 1,400/- (Rupees fourteen hundred) in cash at the time of exchange of equivalents, (that is) at the time (of handing over) of the receipt of this deed .......... On receipt of the whole and entire amount of consideration money we have put the said claimant into possession and occupation of this vended property as absolute owner in place of us, the executants and our heirs and representatives." The deed further stated.
"the sale deed becomes operative from the date when we the executants affixed our signatures thereon. Whatever title, we the executants and our heirs had ............. with respect to this vended property, has become extinct, inoperative and null and void and the same has now been transferred to and acquired by the claimant."
By the word "claimant", the respondent purchaser was referred to.
(3.)The deed was presented at the registration office for registration by the Pandeys on the day it was executed and it was left with the Registrar in the Registration office for the necessary entries and copies being made, a receipt being given to the Pandeys. On February 2, 1946, the appellants on coming to hear of the execution of the deed of sale made the talab-i-mowasibat. On February 7, 1946, the receipt granted by the Registration Office to the Pandeys was made over by them to the respondent purchaser who thereupon paid the balance of the price as stipulated in the deed. On February 9, 1946, the documents were copied in the Registrar's books and thereupon the registration became complete as provided in S. 61 of the Registration Act. the respondent purchaser thereafter received the deed of sale from the Registrar's Office on February 13, 1946.
(2.)The appellants had their residential house contiguous to the house owned by certain persons whom we may call Pandeys. On January 31, 1946, the Pandeys executed a deed of sale in favour of the respondent purchaser in respect of their aforesaid house. The appellants claim a right of pre-emption on account of this sale. The consideration mentioned in the deed was Rs. 2,000/-. There was a subsisting mortgage on that house and the deed provided that out of the consideration a sum of Rs. 200/- would be left with the respondent purchaser for clearing off that mortgage. The deed also recited that the Pandeys had received Rs. 400/- and
"the remaining Rs. 1,400/- (Rupees fourteen hundred) in cash at the time of exchange of equivalents, (that is) at the time (of handing over) of the receipt of this deed .......... On receipt of the whole and entire amount of consideration money we have put the said claimant into possession and occupation of this vended property as absolute owner in place of us, the executants and our heirs and representatives." The deed further stated.
"the sale deed becomes operative from the date when we the executants affixed our signatures thereon. Whatever title, we the executants and our heirs had ............. with respect to this vended property, has become extinct, inoperative and null and void and the same has now been transferred to and acquired by the claimant."
By the word "claimant", the respondent purchaser was referred to.
(3.)The deed was presented at the registration office for registration by the Pandeys on the day it was executed and it was left with the Registrar in the Registration office for the necessary entries and copies being made, a receipt being given to the Pandeys. On February 2, 1946, the appellants on coming to hear of the execution of the deed of sale made the talab-i-mowasibat. On February 7, 1946, the receipt granted by the Registration Office to the Pandeys was made over by them to the respondent purchaser who thereupon paid the balance of the price as stipulated in the deed. On February 9, 1946, the documents were copied in the Registrar's books and thereupon the registration became complete as provided in S. 61 of the Registration Act. the respondent purchaser thereafter received the deed of sale from the Registrar's Office on February 13, 1946.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.