https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192900 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. en-us Wed, 24 Jan 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 30 Jun 2017 17:54:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192900 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 24 Jan 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192900