Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.60 seconds)
Documents citing Jagdish & Ors vs Nathi Mal Kejriwal & Ors on 24 October, 1986

Avtar Singh vs Ajit Singh @ Ranjit Singh And Anr. on 19 May, 1994

5. I can possibly have no quarrel with the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the expression 'other co-sharers' in clause 'Fourthly' of Section 15(1)(b) refers to only those co-sharers who do not fall under clause 'First' or 'Secondly' or 'Thirdly'; of Section 15(1) (b). Consequently, where the co-sharers claiming right of preemption fell either under clause 'first' or under clause 'Secondly' of Section 15(1) (b) they being clearly outside the scope of clause 'Fourthly' suit by them for pre-emption was not maintainable. It has been so held by the Supreme Court in Jagdish v. Nathi Mal Kajriwal, A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 68.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bal Ram vs Smt. Sarbati on 20 May, 2010

Partial pre-emption is not permissible, therefore, once it was found, that one of the vendee was a lady, it was not permissible for the plaintiff / appellant to pre-empt, the share of the other vendees, as it would have resulted in partial pre-emption. Even otherwise, once the stand taken by the plaintiff / appellant was, that he was closely related to the vendor Phussa Ram, and claimed the right of pre-emption being co-sharer, he was not entitled to pre-empt the sale, in view of the law laid down by the RSA No. 203 of 1985 -3- Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagdish and others Vs. Nathi Mal Kejriwal and Others 1987 P.L.J. 14, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to lay down as under :-
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1