Pre-emption covenant enforceability against representatives and transferees with notice upheld; rule against perpetuities not attracted.

A pre-emption covenant recorded in the village record and confined to the settlement period was not void for uncertainty, public policy, or remoteness. The court held that such a covenant did not create any interest in immovable property, so the rule against perpetuities did not apply; Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act negatived any proprietary interest, and Section 14 could not be invoked. The promise also bound the original parties' representatives under Section 37 of the Contract Act and, under Section 40 of the Transfer of Property Act, was enforceable against transferees with notice and gratuitous transferees. The appeal was dismissed and the decree for the respondent was maintained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a contract for pre-emption recorded in the village record was void for uncertainty, opposed to public policy, or hit by the rule against perpetuities; and (ii) whether such a contract could be enforced against the original parties' representatives and transferees.

Issue (i): Whether a contract for pre-emption recorded in the village record was void for uncertainty, opposed to public policy, or hit by the rule against perpetuities.

Analysis: The contract was treated as one intended for the definite period of the settlement and not for an indefinite duration. A pre-emption covenant of that kind was held not to suffer from uncertainty. It was also held not to be opposed to public policy in a province where pre-emption was recognized and enforced. The rule against perpetuities was held inapplicable because, under Indian law, such a contract did not create any interest in immovable property; Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act negatived any such interest, and Section 14 could not therefore be invoked.

Conclusion: The contract was not void for uncertainty, public policy, or remoteness.

Issue (ii): Whether such a contract could be enforced against the original parties' representatives and transferees.

Analysis: Section 37 of the Indian Contract Act made promises binding on the representatives of promisors unless a contrary intention appeared, and no such contrary intention was found. Section 40 of the Transfer of Property Act was applied to hold that the obligation arising from the contract was annexed to the ownership of immovable property and, though not amounting to an interest or easement, was enforceable against transferees with notice and gratuitous transferees. The contract was therefore held binding on the vendor's representatives and on the purchaser with notice.

Conclusion: The contract was enforceable against the representatives of the original parties and against transferees with notice.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed, and the decree in favour of the respondent was allowed to stand.

Ratio Decidendi: A pre-emption covenant confined to the settlement period, which creates no proprietary interest in immovable property, is not hit by the rule against perpetuities and is enforceable under the Contract Act and Section 40 of the Transfer of Property Act against representatives and transferees with notice.

---