w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Satya Narayani Alias Jhamli Devi v/s Hanuman Prasad & Asha Devi


Company & Directors' Information:- PRASAD CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U32301TN1994PTC028160

Company & Directors' Information:- DEVI CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U16000AP2011PTC076133

Company & Directors' Information:- PRASAD AND CO. PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U67120DL1995PTC068088

Company & Directors' Information:- M. PRASAD AND CO LIMITED [Active] CIN = U67120WB1999PLC090325

Company & Directors' Information:- NARAYANI CORPORATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = U22100DL2011PLC219368

Company & Directors' Information:- SATYA CO LTD [Active] CIN = U51109WB1937PLC009050

Company & Directors' Information:- H PRASAD & CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51109WB1944PTC011797

    Civil First Appeal No. 171 of 1998

    Decided On, 29 October 1998

    At, High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MADAN

    For the Appellant: Ashok Ku. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent: --------.



Judgment Text

Arun Madan, J.

1. The appellant-plaintiff has preferred this first appeal against the judgment and decree dated 27-5-97 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 8, Jaipur City. whereby the learned trial Judge dismissed the plaintiff s suit for pre-emption with costs.

2. The salient facts of the case are, that the plaintiff had filed a civil suit for pre-emption claiming herself as co-sharer of the suit property. It has been averred in the plaint inter alia that Hanuman Prasad respondent No. 1 who had sold the suit property at a consideration of Rupees 35,000/- to Smt. Asha Devi. respondent No. 2, had no right of sale vested in him in view of the fact that the offer regarding sale of the suit property though made to the appellant at the first instance at a lesser consideration of Rupees 20,000/-, yet without giving sufficient time to her, he had sold the suit properly to the respondent No. 2 notwithstanding preferential right of the plaintiff for purchase of the same at a lesser consideration as originally agreed to between the parties.

3. This claim of the plaintiff was vehemently denied by the respondents on the averments intern alia that though the offer for gale of the suit property was made initially by the respondent No. 1 to the plaintiff in the year 1984 at a consideration of Rs. 20,000/- but since the plaintiff did not have enough funds and she did not confirm by accepting the offer made by the respondent, No. 1, nor the acceptance was communicated, the respondent No. I had a full lawful right vested in him as the true owner to sell the suit properly to the respondent No. 2, who had admittedly offered the sale consideration higher than the plaintiff's offer. Therefore, the offer for sale consideration of Rs. 35,000/- having been made and accepted by the respondent No. 2. the respondent No. 1 consequently got executed the sale deed of the suit property before the Sub-Registrar, passing thereby valid and lawful title to the respondent No. 2. It was further contended that in any event the right of sale vested with a lawful, owner of property could neither be curtailed or scuttled in a manner as it was sought to be done, by the plaintiff since it was not his case that he had made payment of consideration either while or in part so as to bind the seller i.e. respondent No. 1 towards him by virtue of any agreement of sale and which was not his case.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed as many as seven issues. Out of these seven issues, the onus to prove issue Nos. 1 to 4 was upon the plaintiff while for issue Nos. 5 and 6. it was upon the defendant. Seventh issue related to relief clause. After examining other witnesses, the plaintiff herself appeared in the witness box and examined herself as PW-1 while the defendants examined DW-1 Ramgopal in support of their claims. After hearing both the parties and due appreciation of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court while deciding issue Nos. 1 to 4 against the plaintiff and issue Nos. 5 and 6 against the defendant dismissed the plaintiffs suit, by holding that the plaintiff has extinguished her right of pre-emption and consequently, the right of pre-emption does not accrue to her because the plaintiff herself admitted in her cross-examination that she did not make an offer to Hanuman Prasad (respondent No. 1) for the purchase of the suit property before its sale to the respondent No. 2, and further admitted that the offer for sale consideration of Rs. 35,000/-was made to her but she was not ready or willing to accept the sale consideration at the quoted price. Hence in absence of acceptance of offer by the buyer in favour of the seller no lawful contract could emerge between the parties nor wrong lawful contract could be assumed between them. Consequently there was no embargo on the seller (respondent No. 1) for its sale to the bona tide purchaser for consideration (respondent No. 2). Hence this first appeal.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, and also perused the impugned judgment of the trial Court.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that white deciding issue No. 1, the learned trial Court did not take into consideration the provisions of Rajasthan Pre-emption Act, 1966, particularly Section 8 thereof, which contemplates as under :---

"8. Notice to preemptor.-- (1) When any person proposes to sell, or to foreclose the right to redeem, any immovable property, in respect of which any persons have a right of pre-emption, he shall give notice to all such persons as to the price at which he is proposing so to sell or as to the amount due in respect of the mortgage proposed to he foreclosed, as the case may be.

(2) Such notice shall be given through the civil Court, within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property concerned is situated, shall clearly describe such property, shall state the name and other particulars of the purchaser or the mortgagee and shall be served in the manner prescribed for service of summons in civil suits."

7. Next contention on behalf of the appellant is that while deciding the issues framed on pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court has grossly erred in not taking into consideration that in defence none of the defendants had appeared before it to state that the respondent No. 1 had made first offer to the plaintiff for sale of the suit property, which goes to show that the averments made in defence are devoid of merit.

8. It has also been urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned trial Court has grossly erred in placing reliance upon the evidence of DW-1 Ramgopal with regard to acquiescence and estoppel of the plaintiff. Lastly it has been contended that the plaintiffs testimony remained unimpeached.

9. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid contents of the appellant's counsel with reference to the pleadings as well as the findings recorded by Ihe learned trial Court in the impugned order. Having considered the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the contentions urged on behalf of the respondents before the learned trial Court, I am prima facie of the view that the contentions urged on behalf of the appellant have got no substance and merit and, therefore, are not sustainable in law. As regards first contention as to the service of the notice to the pre-emptor prior to the sale as per Section 8 of the Act, 1966, I am of the view that provisions contained in Section 8 of the Act are not attracted to the present case since the plaintiff had in her deposition before the learned trial Court clearly admitled during cross-examination that the offer regarding sate of the suit property was made to her by the defendant No. 1 but she was not ready to purchase the same at a consideration of Rs.35,000/-.Thus, in view of the clear and unequivocal admission on the part of the plaintiff in her cross-examination, in my considered view, the learned trial Court was absolutely justified in arriving at the conclusion on issue Nos. 2 to 4 that she had obviously surrendered her right of pre-emption in favour of the defendant No. 2, who was bona fide purchaser at a sale consideration of Rs. 35,000/- for the suit property and, who consequently could not be pre-empted from purchasing the suit property. Such findings arrived at by the learned trial Court, in my view, being based on due appreciation of evidence, do not warrant any interference by exercise of jurisdiction u/s 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and deserve to be upheld.

10. Further, in view of the offer having been made to the plaintiff by defendant No. 1 prior to sale of the suit property to the defendant No. 2, which was not admittedly accepted by the plaintiff as she was having no sufficient funds as on the date when the first offer was made, the right of the vendor to make subsequent offer to defendant NO. 2 could not be curtailed or scuttled in any manner since the right of pre-emption of the plaintiff to pre-empt the sale in favour of the defendant No. 2 stood automatically extinguished since she had neither shown her readiness nor communicated her willingness to the latter regarding purchase of property in question and as regards the acceptance to the first offer of the sale of the suit property made to the plaintiff. I am of the considered view that in order to support the plea of waiver, it is incumbent upon the vendor and vendee to establish that they had concluded the agreement to sale in a lawful manner and that the plaintiff was approached and asked to purchase the property for sale consideration, for which the vendor was ready and willing to purchase the suit property by having sufficient funds at his/her disposal in the Bank account and positive evidence must be led on record. It is not the case of the appellant that as a result of the offer made to her, she had either accepted the same on the basis of the agreement to sale reduced in writing by paying either earnest money or part of sale consideration, by virtue of which it could be inferred that the appellant had a clear indefeasible and lawful right of purchase of the suit property. Hence in the absence of any reliable evidence to that effect, I am of the view that on the basis of the sale deed, which was lawfully

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

executed between the defendant Nos. 1 and 2. a valid contract had attained its finality and which is not open to challenge in this appeal. I am fortified by decision of the Apex Court in Indira Bai Vs. Nand Kishore, wherein the Apex Court held as under (at page 1058) : "Failure to serve notice as required under the Act does not render the sale made by vendor in favour of vendee ultra vires." "The act does not provide that in case no notice is given the transaction shall be void. The objective is to intimate the pre-emptor who may (be) interested in getting himself substituted. The Act does not debar the pre-emptor from giving up this right. Rather in case of its non-exercise within two months, may be for the financial reasons, the right stands extinguished." 11, As a result of the above discussion, this appeal fails and, is hereby dismissed in limine. The impugned judgment and decree dated 27-5-97 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 8, Jaipur City are upheld being not open to challenge.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

25-06-2020 Firm: Narmada Prasad Rajesh Kumar, Bilaspur Versus Firm: Kailash Chand Ramesh Kumar Chandrapur, Distt. Janjgir-Champa High Court of Chhattisgarh
24-06-2020 Bhagwati Devi Versus Suritram (Dead) & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
22-06-2020 Jayanta Prasad Banik, Assam Versus STATE of Assam & Others High Court of Gauhati
18-06-2020 Dr. Manoj Kr. Bhagat Versus Masomat Kanchan Devi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
15-06-2020 Samri Devi Shaw Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Mumbai & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
15-06-2020 New India Assurance Company Ltd. Through Its Duly Constituted Attorney Manager, New Delhi Versus Aasha Devi & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
12-06-2020 Raghuvir Prasad Kalicharan Kaithwar, (Since deceased, through His LRs. & Others Versus Hridainarain Rampakhan Pande High Court of Judicature at Bombay
12-06-2020 Munni Devi & Others Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
12-06-2020 Satya Pal Singh & Others State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
11-06-2020 Sheelender Kumar Gupta & Another Versus Mahaviri Devi (Deceased) Thr. Lrs. High Court of Delhi
08-06-2020 Geeta Devi Versus Om Prakash & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
02-06-2020 Renu Devi & Another Versus State of Punjab & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
02-06-2020 Pravin Kishor Prasad Singh Versus The State of Bihar & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
29-05-2020 Mahadev Prasad @ Shiv Ram Goojar & Another Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
28-05-2020 Most. Ahilya Devi @ Ahilya Devi Versus State of Bihar & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
28-05-2020 Manju Devi Versus Board of Revenue Allahabad & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
21-05-2020 Savitri Devi & Others Versus State of U.P. & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
20-05-2020 Aasha Devi Versus Bihar State Food & Civil Supply Corporation Ltd through its Managing Director, Patna & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
13-05-2020 Shiv Prasad Singh Versus Nageshwar Kumar & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
13-05-2020 Kumar Bimal Prasad Singh & Others Versus Hare Ram Singh & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
11-05-2020 Sreeja Prasad Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam & Another High Court of Kerala
08-05-2020 Ram Prasad Nayak Versus State of Chhattisgarh High Court of Chhattisgarh
04-05-2020 Priyambada Devi Birla & Birla Corporation Ltd. Versus Arvind Kumar Newar & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
01-05-2020 Inder Singh Versus Savitri Devi High Court of Delhi
29-04-2020 Gopi Chand Versus Geeta Devi & Others High Court of Delhi
22-04-2020 Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao & Others Versus State of A.P. & Others Supreme Court of India
15-04-2020 Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Ltd. & Others Versus Mohani Devi & Another Supreme Court of India
10-04-2020 Ayodhya Prasad Mishra Versus State of U.P. High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
23-03-2020 Damyanti Devi Versus Vipul Infrastructure Developers Ltd. & Others High Court of Delhi
20-03-2020 Prem Devi Versus Delhi Development Authority Through Its Vice Chairman Vikas Sadan, New Delhi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
19-03-2020 Satya Devi Versus State of HP & Another High Court of Himachal Pradesh
19-03-2020 Uma Devi Versus The State Govt of NCT of Delhi High Court of Delhi
19-03-2020 Ram Chandra Prasad Singh Versus Sharad Yadav Supreme Court of India
18-03-2020 Dr. Nirmala Devi, Obstetrician & Gynecologist, Assitant Professor Versus Chandrakanta National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-03-2020 Ex-Gunner Virender Prasad Versus Union of India & Another Supreme Court of India
18-03-2020 Shambhu Prasad Sharma Advocate Versus Renu Jogi High Court of Chhattisgarh
18-03-2020 Surendra Kumar Versus Phulwanti Devi High Court of Rajasthan
16-03-2020 Khushboo Devi Versus Indranil Ray Chowdhury & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
13-03-2020 Sankar Prasad Bose & Another Versus M/s. Shitala Construction Rep. by Ajit Panja & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
11-03-2020 Jyothi Prasad Versus K.V. Prakasan & Another High Court of Kerala
10-03-2020 G. Uma Devi & Another Versus M. Krishnamurthy Reddiar & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-03-2020 The Branch Manager, M/s The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Through Divisional Manager Versus Jayanti Devi & Others High Court of Jharkhand
06-03-2020 M/s Nandan Biomatrix Ltd. Versus S. Ambika Devi & Others Supreme Court of India
06-03-2020 Sakuntala Devi Versus Dr. Md. Mumtaz Alam & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
06-03-2020 M. Vanaja Versus M. Sarla Devi (Dead) Supreme Court of India
06-03-2020 Poonam Devi & Others Versus Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Supreme Court of India
04-03-2020 Tulsa Devi Nirola & Others Versus Radha Nirola & Others Supreme Court of India
04-03-2020 Ambika Singh (since deceased) represented by legal representatives & Others Versus Mosomat Sohagi Devi (since deceased) represented by her legal heirs & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
03-03-2020 Saraswati Devi Versus Bharat Coking Coal Limited through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Dhanbad & Others High Court of Jharkhand
02-03-2020 Badri Prasad Mishra Versus Moti Singh High Court of Chhattisgarh
28-02-2020 Devi & Another Versus The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Secretariat & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-02-2020 State of Odisha & Others Versus Sri Satya Narayan Behura Supreme Court of India
28-02-2020 Sandhya Devi @ Sandhya Goyal Versus State High Court of Delhi
27-02-2020 Tvl. Trust Metal, Rep. by its Proprietrix Bhagwanti Devi Versus Assistant Commissioner (CT), Moore Market (South) Assessment Circle High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-02-2020 M/s. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai Versus Karmi Devi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-02-2020 Devi Versus Narayanan @ Alagappan & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
25-02-2020 Shyam Sundar Dhal Versus Sharada Devi Bubna & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
19-02-2020 Union of India & Others Versus Ashes Kiran Prasad High Court of Delhi
18-02-2020 Golkonda Uma Devi Versus Enti Manjula & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
18-02-2020 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited A Government of India Enterprises, Delhi & Others Versus Gopal Prasad Jaiswal High Court of Chhattisgarh
18-02-2020 Sujatha Devi Akondi & Others Versus M/s. Safeway InfraRep By Its Managing Partner Ivsn Raju, Hyderabad & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-02-2020 Jagdish Prasad Vijay Versus Niti Aaayog, Erstwhile, Planning Commission Through The Dy. Chairman, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
14-02-2020 Santosh Prasad @ Santosh Kumar Versus The State of Bihar Supreme Court of India
14-02-2020 Mathura Prasad Tripathi Versus State of M.P. & Others High Court of Madhya Pradesh
14-02-2020 Woodland Manufacturers Limited Versus Sankar Prasad Garga & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
13-02-2020 Mala Devi Versus State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Medical & Health Lko. & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
11-02-2020 Ratna Devi Versus State of Haryana & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
11-02-2020 Matawar Prasad Versus District Judge Shravasti & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
10-02-2020 Raj Kumar Prasad & Others Versus Som Datt Medical Centre & Others Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
10-02-2020 Rajender Prasad Aggarwal & Others Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
07-02-2020 Ram Prasad Versus Commissioner & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
06-02-2020 Manju Devi Versus State of Bihar High Court of Judicature at Patna
04-02-2020 Kiran Devi Agrawal & Others Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
03-02-2020 A. Sakunthala Devi Versus The Registrar General, High Court, Madras & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-01-2020 Govind Prasad Kejriwal Versus State of Bihar & Another Supreme Court of India
30-01-2020 Vidya Devi & Another Versus The Union of India, Represented by the Secretary, To the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi & Another Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
30-01-2020 Urmila Devi & Others Versus Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. & Another Supreme Court of India
28-01-2020 M.S. Marketing Services, Salem, Represented by its Proprietor M. Satya Versus The District Revenue Officer / General Manager The Salem District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Limited Sithanoor, Salem & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-01-2020 Chandeshwar Saw Versus Brij Bhushan Prasad & Others Supreme Court of India
28-01-2020 Shakuntala Devi Jan Kalyan Samiti Through Secy. & Others Versus State of U.P. Through Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
28-01-2020 Kirpal Singh & Others Versus Kamla Devi & Others Supreme Court of India
28-01-2020 Kashmira Devi Versus State of Uttarakhand & Others Supreme Court of India
27-01-2020 Ramnarayan Versus & Another Geeta Prasad & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
24-01-2020 M/s. C.C.L. Products (India) Ltd., Rep., by its Executive Chairman, Challarajendra Prasad & Others Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by its Public Prosecutor & Another High Court of Andhra Pradesh
24-01-2020 Manokamini Devi Versus Ashok Kumar High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
23-01-2020 C. Sarojini Devi Versus The Director of Local Fund Audits, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-01-2020 K.S. Rema Devi, Accountant, Azhoor-Muttappalam Service Co-Operative Bank, Thiruvananthapuram Versus The Kerala Co-Operative Service Examination Board, Represented by Its Secretary, Thiruvannathapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
22-01-2020 Nanakram & Another Versus Jamuna Prasad High Court of Madhya Pradesh
21-01-2020 Sant Prasad Seth Versus State of U.P. & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
20-01-2020 Sumitra Devi (Female) Versus State of Bihar & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
20-01-2020 State of AP Versus Devi Engineering & Construction High Court of Andhra Pradesh
20-01-2020 K.N. Prasad Versus P.R. Gigi & Another High Court of Kerala
17-01-2020 Neelam Devi Versus State of Bihar Through Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna High Court of Judicature at Patna
17-01-2020 Rajinder Prasad Aggarwal Versus Dr. Anil Kumar Narang High Court of Delhi
17-01-2020 Shunti Devi Versus State of Jharkhand High Court of Jharkhand
16-01-2020 Prita Prasad & Another Versus Md. Khalil & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
16-01-2020 Guriya Devi Versus State of Bihar Through Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna High Court of Judicature at Patna
16-01-2020 Bhola Prasad Shukla & Others Versus Union of India & Others Supreme Court of India
14-01-2020 Bajaj Allianz General Ins. Co. Ltd. Versus Satya Devi & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
13-01-2020 The Sada Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., through its General Manager, Pratosh R. Lotlikar Versus Prasad U. Parab & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Goa


LawyerServices is a Premium Legal Tech solution.


Lawyers, Law Firms, Government Departments and Corporates rely on us for, Workflow Automation, Data Aggregation, Timely Updates, Case Management, Intelligent Research, Latest Legal Data Updates and a LOT more!

If you are a legal professional, CONTACT US, in order to see how our UNIQUE solution can benefit your organization.

Features Intro Close Box