Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
  • The Hon'ble Dr. Tej Bahadur Sapru, for the appellants, submitted that Dal Chand pre-emptor died during the pendency of the suit and his heirs were brought on the record. Dal Chand claimed a priority over the defendant vendee as he was a nearer relative of the vendor, and his sons stood in his shoes and could also claim priority. A son was entitled to succeed to all the property of his father and the right to pre-empt was also a species of property. The fact that the sons stood on exactly the same footing as the vendee would not deprive them of the right which devolved upon them through the father. The following cases were referred to during the argument — Wajid Ali Khan v. Shaban (1), Muhammad Yusuf Ali Khan v. Dal Kuar (2) and Kaunsilla Kunwar v. Gopal Prasad (3).
  • Mil D.R Sawhny, for the respondent, submitted that the matter was concluded by Ram Gopal v. Peari Lal (4). The right of pre-emption was a purely personal right, and the son not being a nearer blood relation himself could not succeed as against the vendee. He might only inherit the right to maintain the suit but not to any thing else. The right of the plaintiff must subsist at the date of the decree; Tafazzul Eusain v. Than Singh (5).
  • The Hon'ble Dr. Tej Bahadur Sapru was heard in reply.
Judges
  • Hon'ble Sir William Tudball, I.C.S.
  • Hon'ble Sir Henry George Richards
  • Hon'ble Sir Charles Ross Alston
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
  • The Hon'ble Dr. Tej Bahadur Sapru, for the appellants, submitted that Dal Chand pre-emptor died during the pendency of the suit and his heirs were brought on the record. Dal Chand claimed a priority over the defendant vendee as he was a nearer relative of the vendor, and his sons stood in his shoes and could also claim priority. A son was entitled to succeed to all the property of his father and the right to pre-empt was also a species of property. The fact that the sons stood on exactly the same footing as the vendee would not deprive them of the right which devolved upon them through the father. The following cases were referred to during the argument — Wajid Ali Khan v. Shaban (1), Muhammad Yusuf Ali Khan v. Dal Kuar (2) and Kaunsilla Kunwar v. Gopal Prasad (3).
  • Mil D.R Sawhny, for the respondent, submitted that the matter was concluded by Ram Gopal v. Peari Lal (4). The right of pre-emption was a purely personal right, and the son not being a nearer blood relation himself could not succeed as against the vendee. He might only inherit the right to maintain the suit but not to any thing else. The right of the plaintiff must subsist at the date of the decree; Tafazzul Eusain v. Than Singh (5).
  • The Hon'ble Dr. Tej Bahadur Sapru was heard in reply.
Judges
  • Hon'ble Sir William Tudball, I.C.S.
  • Hon'ble Sir Henry George Richards
  • Hon'ble Sir Charles Ross Alston
See more information ...
Smart Summary

    Partab Singh v. Daulat

    Richards, C.J and Tudball, J.:— We think, having regard to the fact that the appellants could not have maintained the suit as against the vendees had they instituted the suit themselves, they cannot take advantage of the fact that their father at the time of the suit had a preferential right as against the vendees on the ground that he was a nearer relation. We accordingly dismiss the appeal with costs.

    Appeal dismissed.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    Partab Singh v. Daulat
    (Dec 3, 1913)