Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(iv) According to the plaintiff, as early as in the year 1987 itself, on the request made by his brother, the second defendant, he agreed to sell his entire 1/6th undivided half share in the suit property and received Rs.25,000/- for such sale on 08.08.1987 and executed a registered power of attorney deed dated 12.08.1987 authorising his elder brother namely the fifth defendant to sell his 1/6th undivided share in the suit property to the second defendant. Subsequently, after the death of the mother on 04.05.1988 and after execution of the partition deed dated 28.12.1990, under Ex.A3, sale deed dated 03.01.1991, the plaintiff, through his power of attorney agent viz., fifth defendant had sold his entire 1/6th undivided share in the suit property to the second defendant for a valuable sale consideration. Thus, on and from 03.01.1991, the defendants 2 to 6 are the owner of the undivided share in the suit property. While so, the third defendant requested the other defendants namely defendants 2, 4, 5 and 6 to transfer their undivided share in the suit property and they also accordingly executed settlement deeds in favour of the third defendant for consideration, which are dealt with in para Nos. 9 to 12 of the plaint. By virtue of such documents the nature of the suit property and the character of the suit property was converted as an absolute property of the third defendant. Further, on and from 17.07.1992, being the last date of execution of the settlement/release deeds, the third defendant become the absolute owner of the suit property. While facts are so as stated above, by a sale deed dated 29.08.2007, the third defendant sold the suit property to the 8th defendant for a valuable sale consideration and also handed over the possession of the suit property to her and thereby the 8th defendant became the absolute owner of the suit property. On such purchase, the 8th defendant demolished the then existing super structure and put up a building thereon. While so, the plaintiff sent an e-mail dated 22.08.2007, just prior to the sale of the suit property in favour of the eighth defendant and made a claim that he is interested in purchasing the suit property from the third defendant. The Plaintiff also issued a notice dated 29.12.2007 questioning the transfer of the suit property in favour of the third defendant by the defendants 2 to 6 and called upon the third defendant not to alienate the suit property to any one. However, without considering such pre-emptive right of the plaintiff, the suit property was sold to the eighth defendant. It was further contended that as per Article 815 Section 14 of the French Law, when a co-sharer sells the joint family property to third parties, he has to offer the sale of the same to each of the co-sharers and only on refusal of the co-sharers to purchase the property, the sale can be effected in favour of third parties. In this case, the plaintiff has made an offer to buy the suit property to which Ms. Sheela, wife of the third defendant, has replied in the month of August 2007 that they had no intention of selling the suit property and that they want to retain it and to reside there after retirement. Inspite of such statement, the suit property was sold to the eighth defendant without considering the pre-emptive right of the plaintiff and therefore, the sale deed dated 29.08.2007 in favour of the eighth defendant is hit by the principles of pre-emptive right in favour of the plaintiff, hence, the plaintiff has filed the suit.

(ii) It is further stated by the first defendant that right of pre-emption is unknown among Christians much less French Citizens. The suit property having been sold in favour of the eighth defendant, the plaintiff cannot make a claim for alleged right of pre-emption against the eighth defendant. Even otherwise, the plaintiff never informed the defendants 1 to 6 about his desire to purchase the shares of the other co-sharers in the suit property at any point of time. The eighth defendant purchased the suit property for a valuable sale consideration by means of a registered sale deed dated 29.08.2007 and the right of the third defendant to effect such sale is also not disputed by the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff, who had earlier relinquished his share in the suit property by a document dated 03.01.1991, is estopped from making a claim for pre-emptive right over the suit property and the New French Code Civil has no application to the transaction in question especially for making a claim for pre-emptive right. Above all, the plaintiff is an estranged son of the first defendant and he had neither taken care of the parents nor did he attend the funeral of his mother inspite of due intimation to him. The claim of pre-emptive right was made by the plaintiff only to cause unnecessary problems to the defendants.

14. As regards the pre-emptive right made by the first respondent/plaintiff, the learned counsel would submit that even though the defendants raised a defence that French Law is not applicable, Indian Succession alone has to be applied to the present case and the concept of pre-emptive right is unknown to Christians residing in Puducherry or to the French Law, they did not file any document to prove such defence. When it is the defence that the French Law is not applicable to the case, the burden is on the defendants to prove it to the satisfaction of the Court by producing acceptable evidence. However, in the present case, no document was filed by the defendants, except a mere denial of the plaint averments by filing a written statement. The eighth defendant, before purchasing the suit property, ought to have sought the opinion of a legal practitioner who is acquainted with French Law inasmuch as she has purchased the suit property from French Nationals. Furthermore, just prior to the sale made in favour of the eighth defendant, the plaintiff had sent e-mail dated 22.08.2007, Ex.A-32 and A-33 to the third defendant and expressed his intention to purchase the suit property and also requested him not to alienate the suit property. Inspite of receipt of communication from the plaintiff, the third defendant proceeded to sell the suit property to the eighth defendant and thereby deprived the pre-emptive right of the plaintiff to purchase the suit property.

26. As mentioned above, in the present case, at the time when the plaintiff instituted the suit seeking pre-emptive right, he was not holding any right in the suit property, either as an undivided owner or the whole of the suit property. The plaintiff has no right of pre-emption to be sought when he seizes to be a owner of the suit property. A right to seek preemption will arise only if the person who makes such claim has a semblance of interest to seek premptive right. It is a privilege to take priority over others and for claiming such privilege, the person who makes a premptive right should show some semblance of right in the property. In other words, a person who is no way connected with the property either as a tenant or a lessee cannot seek a right of preemption. The person who makes a claim for pre-emptive right must show some pre-existing right in his favour to make such a claim within a reasonable time after losing such pre-existing right before alienation of the property to others. Further, such a right of premption cannot be asserted as a matter of right. In the present case, none of the above ingredients have been satisfied by the plaintiff warranting consideration of his claim to seek for pre-emptive right over the suit property which was already sold in favour of the eighth defendant. The trial Court, without properly considering the above issue has erroneously held that the plaintiff is having a pre-emptive right and therefore declared the sale deed dated 29.08.2007 executed in favour of the eighth defendant as void. Even PW1, power of attorney agent examined on behalf of the plaintiff had deposed that the plaintiff, only after coming to know about the sale made by the third defendant in favour of the eighth defendant had taken steps to assert a pre-emptive right by instituting the suit. In such view of the matter, we hold that the plaintiff cannot assert a right of pre-emption in this case and we answer point No.3 against the plaintiff.