Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. The result, therefore, is that even after the execution of this deed, Maharaj Singh plaintiff, had a proprietary interest left in the mahal in question. He had thus a right to claim pre-emption in respect of the property situated therein. We therefore, think that, having omitted to claim pre-emption in respect of that part of the property, his entire claim must fail, because he cannot be allowed to claim a partial preemption.

7. It was pointed out by Mr. Justice Mahmood, in the case of Durga Prasad v. Munsi 6 A. 423 : A.W.N. (1884) 146 : 4 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 80 and Sheobharos Rai v. Jiach Rai 8 A. 462 : A.W.N. (1886) 214 : 5 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 176 "that the principle of denying the right of, pre-emption except as to the whole of the property sold is that by breaking up the bargain the pre-emptor would be at liberty to take the best portion of the property and leave the worst part of it with the vendee."