TMI Blog1990 (9) TMI 356X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .R. 1960 SC 1368. Barring High Court of Rajasthan and erstwhile, Mewar State Jethmal v. Sajanumal, [1947] Mewar Law Reports, 36, most of the other high courts, namely, Allahabad, Naunihal Singh v. Ram Ratan, 39 ILR 127, Oudh, Ram Rathi v. Mr. Dhiraji, [1947] Oudh 81, Ajmer Gopinath v. R.S. Nand Kishore, AIR 1952 Ajmer 26, Bhopal, Abdul Karim v. Babu Lal, AIR 1953 Bhopal, and Lahore Kanshi Ram Sharma Anr. v. Lahori Ram Anr., AIR 1938 Lab. 273 have answered the issue in the affirmative. The Privy Coun- cil, [1929] PC AIR 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 blocs. It had: Assuming that the prior completed purch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... considerations of equity, to transactions and assurances, express or im- plied to avoid injustice. Legal approach of the High Court, thus, that no estoppel could arise unless notice under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Pre-emption Act (In brevity 'the Act') was given by the seller and pre-emptor should have had occasion to pay or tender price ignores the fallacy that Estoppel need not be specifically provided as it can always be used as a weapon of defence. In the Privy Council decision, referred earlier, the court was concerned with Oudh Laws Act (18 of 1876) which too had an identical provision for giving notice by seller. No notice was given but since pre-emptor knew that the property was for sale and he had even obtained details ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... endee by accepting price and transferring possession without registration of sale deed adopted subterfuge to defeat the right of pre-emption observed that, 'there were no equities in favour of a pre-emptor, whose sole object is to disturb a valid transaction by virtue of the rights created in him by statute. To defeat the law of pre- emption by any legitimate means is not fraud on the part of either the vendor or the vendee and a person is entitled to steer clear of the law of pre-emption by all lawful means'. Such being the nature of right it is harsh to claim that its extinction by conduct would amount to statutory illegality or would be opposed to public policy. The distinction be- tween validity and illegality or the transaction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s found that the respondent knew of the sale deed. assisted the appellant in raising the construction and after the construction was completed in the month of June he gave the notice in month of July for exercise of the right and filed the suit in January would itself demonstrate that the conduct of the respondent was inequitable and the courts in this country which are primarily the courts of equity, justice and good conscience cannot permit the respondent to defeat the right of appellant and invoke a right which has been called a weak and inequitable right. In the result this appeal succeeds and is allowed. The order of the High Court is set aside and that of the First Appellate Court is restored. The appellant shall be entitled to his co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
