Pre-emption by consent decree fails without impleading necessary parties, and consanguinity alone cannot support the claim.

A consent decree for pre-emption cannot bind a person in actual possession with notice of a prior registered sale when that person was not impleaded as a necessary party, because proprietary rights cannot be defeated behind his back and a collusive compromise may amount to fraud on the court. On the stated facts, the decree was therefore unsustainable and void ab initio. The text also states that a daughter could not claim pre-emption merely on consanguinity under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, as the governing law did not support pre-emption on that basis. The decree and concurrent findings were set aside because the proprietary interest was affected without lawful impleadment and without a valid statutory foundation for pre-emption.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a consent decree for pre-emption, obtained without impleading a person in actual possession and having notice of the prior registered sale, was binding and sustainable in law; (ii) whether a daughter could claim a right of pre-emption on the basis of consanguinity under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913.

Issue (i): whether a consent decree for pre-emption, obtained without impleading a person in actual possession and having notice of the prior registered sale, was binding and sustainable in law.

Analysis: A registered sale deed operated as notice of the transaction, and actual possession also gave notice of the appellant's interest. In a pre-emption dispute, a person whose rights may be defeated is a necessary party, and no decree affecting proprietary rights can be sustained behind his back. The Court also found that the compromise decree was unsupported by any finding establishing a superior pre-emptive right and that the circumstances disclosed suppression of material facts and collusion, amounting to fraud on the Court. A decree so obtained could not stand and was void ab initio.

Conclusion: The consent decree was unsustainable and could not bind the appellant.

Issue (ii): whether a daughter could claim a right of pre-emption on the basis of consanguinity under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913.

Analysis: The governing law, as explained in the constitutional scrutiny of the Act, did not sustain pre-emption on the basis of consanguinity. The daughter of the vendor therefore could not claim a valid pre-emption right merely by reason of relationship, and the appellant, if heard, could have contested the very foundation of the claim. This reinforced the conclusion that the pre-emption decree had been obtained without lawful basis.

Conclusion: No valid right of pre-emption could be claimed on the basis of consanguinity in the circumstances of the case.

Final Conclusion: The decree and the concurrent judgments below were set aside because the appellant's proprietary rights were affected without impleadment, the compromise decree was collusive and void, and the claimed basis of pre-emption was not legally sustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: A pre-emption decree affecting proprietary rights cannot be sustained if passed without impleading a necessary party having notice and possession, and a claim to pre-emption based solely on consanguinity is not a valid basis where the statute and constitutional principles do not support it.

---