Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a right of pre-emption had accrued on the facts before execution and registration of the sale deed, and whether the arrangement adopted by the vendor and vendee could be treated as fraud defeating the pre-emptive right.
Analysis: The right of pre-emption under the Berar Land Revenue Code, 1928 arose only when there was a transfer of the kind contemplated by the Code. A contract for sale, by itself, did not create any interest in immovable property under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and where registration was required, title did not pass until a valid registered conveyance was executed. The Court treated pre-emption as a weak and statutory right of substitution, and held that it could not be invoked before a completed sale came into existence. It further held that parties were entitled to avoid the accrual of a pre-emptive right by lawful means, and that such conduct did not amount to fraud merely because it prevented the right from arising.
Conclusion: No enforceable right of pre-emption had accrued when the suit was brought, and the appeal succeeded.
Ratio Decidendi: A pre-emptive right under the applicable statute arises only on a completed and legally effective transfer, and a mere contract for sale, without a registered conveyance where registration is required, does not trigger that right.