Law: Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991

Section: 30(a),13

Law: Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991

Section: 30(a),13

(a) Punjab Pre-emption Act (IX of 1991)-------Ss. 30, 13 & 5---Performance of talbs prior to the registration of sale-deed---Vendee had obtained physical possession of the property before registration of sale-deed---Effect---Suit of plaintiff was decreed concurrently---Contention of the defendant was that limitation under section 30(a) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 would start from the date of the registration of the sale-deed and not prior to the same; and plaintiff having performed talbs prior to the registration of sale-deed, had no cause of action in filing the suit---Validity---Talb-i-mawathibat and talb-i-ishhad were performed in accordance with law---Limitation would start from the date when the defendant being the vendee had obtained physical possession of the property and the limitation would not wait to start from the date when the document was registered---Under section 13 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 a pre-emptor had to act forthwith and not wait even for a moment while making immediate demand after attaining knowledge of the sale to which he wished to pre-empt and also take further steps within the prescribed time limit---Talbs, after the gaining of knowledge of sale, could be performed in accordance with law even after the sale had in fact taken place by way of vendee having received the consideration money and the delivery of possession of the suit land, even if the sale-deed had not been registered at that time---Cause of action accrued to the plaintiffs when their right was infringed by the signing of the sale agreement by the vendor and the vendees---Agreement, if executed, but not having been gotten registered for a long time, did not mean that the person aggrieved by such transaction would be deprived from agitating his right provided by the law---Date, time and place were crucial in a pre-emption suit and jumping demand was required for performance of talbs---If a pre-emptor did not disclose his intention of exercising his pre-emptive right; he would be ousted as having not fulfilled the requirement of immediate demand as mentioned in S.13 of the Act---Concurrent findings of the courts below could not be interfered…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492