Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.24 seconds)Jagdish & Ors vs Nathi Mal Kejriwal & Ors on 24 October, 1986
8. Attractive at this argument is, we find that this cannot be accepted in view of the later decision of this Court in Jagdish and Ors. v. Nathi Mai Kejriwal and Ors. , where this precise contention has been negatived. After setting out the contention and the provisions of Section 15(1)(b) in paragraph 2 of the judgment, the learned Judges observed :
Atam Prakash vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 27 February, 1986
In order to understand the meaning of the words 'other co-sharers' in Section 15(1)(b) we have to read the Act as it stood before the decision in Atam Prakash case. It is seen that the expression 'other co-sharers' in clause 'Fourthly' of Section 15(1)(b) of the Act refers to only those co-sharers who do not fall under clause 'First' or 'Secondly' or Thirdly' of Section 15(1)(b) of the Act. Since the petitioners admittedly fall either under clause 'First' or under clause 'Secondly' of Section 15(1)(b) of the Act they are clearly outside the scope of clause 'Fourthly'. Therefore, the petitioners cannot claim the right of preemption under clause 'Fourthly'. We do not, therefore, find any substance in this contention which was urged for the first time before the High Court.
The Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913
1