Pre-emption rights and estoppel defeat a co-sharer's claim after the amended law removed his entitlement.

A co-sharer who had himself sold specific parcels of coparcenary property to strangers was estopped from later asserting pre-emption against a further transfer of the same property, because the right of pre-emption must exist at the date of sale, suit and decree. The Court also held that the amended Section 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 applied in the pending appeal, since an appeal is a continuation of the original proceedings and the law in force on the date of final decision governs. As the claimant did not fall within the amended class of persons entitled to pre-empt, the decree for pre-emption could not be sustained and the suit was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a co-sharer who had himself sold specific parcels of coparcenary property to strangers could later assert a right of pre-emption against a subsequent transferee; (ii) whether the amended Section 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 applied to defeat the claim while the appeal was pending before the Court.

Issue (i): whether a co-sharer who had himself sold specific parcels of coparcenary property to strangers could later assert a right of pre-emption against a subsequent transferee.

Analysis: The right of pre-emption is a statutory right that must be available at the date of sale, the date of suit and the date of decree. A person who has himself inducted strangers into the joint property by selling specific portions to them cannot subsequently object to a further transfer of the same property to another stranger on the footing that strangers should not enter the estate. The doctrine of estoppel applies to pre-emption claims, and the vendor-claimant cannot challenge the very title created by his own sale in order to defeat the later sale.

Conclusion: The claim to pre-emption was not maintainable on this ground.

Issue (ii): whether the amended Section 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 applied to defeat the claim while the appeal was pending before the Court.

Analysis: An appeal is a continuation of the original proceedings, and the appellate court is required to take judicial notice of the law in force on the date of decision. Since the amendment had come into force before the matter was finally decided, the Court applied the amended law and examined entitlement as on that date. Under the amended provision, the right of pre-emption was confined to the tenant described therein, and the claimant did not fall within that category.

Conclusion: The amended law applied and the claimant had no subsisting right to pre-empt.

Final Conclusion: The decree for pre-emption could not be sustained and the suit stood dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A pre-emption right must subsist at the time of the final appellate decision, and a claimant who has himself introduced strangers into the property is estopped from asserting pre-emption against a subsequent transfer to another stranger.

---