Pre-emption rights and restitution: later evacuee-property claims did not justify reopening the decree or recovering the deposited money.

In pre-emption, the pre-emptor acquires only the rights available to the vendee, and the vendee is not treated as guaranteeing the vendor's title. A decree and payment of pre-emption money could not be reopened merely because the property was later claimed as evacuee property, where no fraud was established and the Custodian's action arose after the decree and deposit. A challenge to the constitutional validity of the pre-emption right could not be raised by a party who had invoked that right, and the asserted lack of jurisdiction was not substantiated. The deposited money was not recoverable when possession later became unavailable.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the decree and the consequent payment of the pre-emption money could be reopened on the ground of alleged fraud or because the property was later claimed as evacuee property; (ii) whether the pre-emptor could resist the consequences of pre-emption by contending that the underlying right was constitutionally invalid or that the trial court lacked jurisdiction; and (iii) whether the deposited money was recoverable by the pre-emptor when delivery of possession became unavailable.

Issue (i): whether the decree and the consequent payment of the pre-emption money could be reopened on the ground of alleged fraud or because the property was later claimed as evacuee property.

Analysis: In pre-emption, the pre-emptor steps into the shoes of the vendee and acquires only the rights that the vendee was entitled to take. The vendee is not bound to guarantee the vendor's title, and no fraud was established merely because the vendees did not inform the Court about the Custodian's proceedings. The Custodian's action, as admitted, arose after the decree and after the pre-emptor had deposited the money and obtained transfer of title.

Conclusion: The decree was not shown to be vitiated by fraud, and the subsequent evacuee-property proceedings did not entitle the pre-emptor to recover the amount from the vendees.

Issue (ii): whether the pre-emptor could resist the consequences of pre-emption by contending that the underlying right was constitutionally invalid or that the trial court lacked jurisdiction.

Analysis: The challenge to the validity of the pre-emption right could not be raised by a party who had invoked that very right and obtained a decree on it. The plea of want of jurisdiction was also left unsubstantiated, and the decree had become final.

Conclusion: The objections based on constitutional invalidity and lack of jurisdiction were rejected.

Issue (iii): whether the deposited money was recoverable by the pre-emptor when delivery of possession became unavailable.

Analysis: Once the pre-emptor deposited the money, the transfer of title became operative in his favour, and the risk of loss caused by the Custodian's later action could not be shifted back to the vendees. The inability to secure possession from the Custodian did not create any right to restitution of the pre-emption amount.

Conclusion: The pre-emptor was not entitled to recover the deposited money.

Final Conclusion: The revision failed on all material grounds and the order refusing restitution was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: In pre-emption, the pre-emptor acquires only the rights available to the vendee and cannot recover the purchase money from the vendee merely because a later event defeats possession or reveals a defect in the vendor's title.

---