Pre-emption rights must subsist throughout appeal; a later statutory amendment can extinguish the claim and bar relief.

A pre-emption claim must be supported by a subsisting right and remedy not only on the date of sale and suit, but also throughout the pendency of the proceedings, because an appeal is a continuation of the original action. Where a statutory amendment takes away the co-owner's right of pre-emption during the appeal and confines the remedy to tenants, the pre-emption suit becomes non-maintainable at the appellate stage. The supervening change in law was treated as decisive, and the pre-emption claim failed once the statutory basis for that right was withdrawn.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondents' right of pre-emption survived the statutory amendment made during the pendency of the appeals, and whether the suit for pre-emption remained maintainable.

Analysis: The right and remedy in a pre-emption matter must exist not only on the date of sale and the date of suit, but also when the decree is affirmed or modified in appeal, because an appeal is a continuation of the original proceedings. Once the Haryana Pre-emption Amendment Act, 1995 came into force during the pendency of the appeals, the statutory basis for the co-owner's right of pre-emption stood taken away and the remedy was confined to tenants. The Court also took judicial notice of the change in law.

Conclusion: The respondents had lost the right of pre-emption during the pendency of the appeals, and the suit for pre-emption was not maintainable. The appeals were allowed and the suits were dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: In a pre-emption dispute, the subsisting right and remedy must continue throughout the pendency of the proceedings, and a supervening statutory amendment extinguishing that right renders the claim non-maintainable even at the appellate stage.

---