Law: Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913)

Section: 4, 15

Law: Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)

Section: 52

(a) Pre-emption  Vendee, having equal rights of pre-emption, associating with himself in purchase another person with rights inferior to that of pre-emptor-Not entitled to resist claim of pre-emptor even in respect of his own share of purchase-Punjab Pre-emption Act (1 of 1913), Ss. 4 & 15. If a purchaser, having an equal right of pre-emption, asso ciates with himself in the purchase a person with rights inferior to those of the pre-emptor, he is not entitled to resist the claim of such pre-emptor even in respect of his own share of the purchase. The purchaser in such a case would be deemed to have sunk down to the level of his associate and therefore, would not be entitled to resist pre-emption even qua his own share. Imam-ud-Din and another v. Nur Khan and another 10 P R 1884 ; Murad v. Mine Khan and others 94 P R 1895 ; Achhru and others v. Labhu and others 48 P R 1907 ; Yakub Khan v. Karman and others 66 I C 466 ; Bhagwana and others v. Shadi and others A I R 1934 Lab. 878 and Pandit Harbangwan Dad v. Sardar Partap Singh and others A I R 1938 Lah. 242 ref. (b) Pre-emption Lis pendens, doctrine of-Does not apply to sale of immovable property by vendee in favour of a person having rights of pre-emption superior to that of pre-emptor Re sale by vendee to a person having rights superior to that of pre-emption-Would defeat pre-emptor Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913), Ss. 4 & IS-Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S. 52. No doubt the rule of lis pendens applies to pre-emption suits but it does not affect the validity of the sale effected by the vendee during the pendency of the pre-emption suit to a person possessing a right of pre-emption equal to that of the pre-emptor, the reason being that such a sale does not really offend against the true rule of lis pendens and the purchaser can successfully defend his title on the ground of his pre-existing right, in case it is equal or superior to the pre-emptor. The re-sale does not really vest any new rights. All that the subsequent vendee does in such a case is to take the bargain in the assertion of his pre-existing pre-emption right, and hence, the re-sale does not offend the doctrine of lis…