Summary
The Supreme Court upheld a decree of pre-emption where both the claimant and purchaser shared a courtyard amenity, but the claimant was nearer in relationship to the vendor. Section 5(1)(c) did not immunise every transfer to a person enjoying a pre-emption right; it excluded claims by persons whose rights were equal or inferior to the purchaser’s. The claimant’s superior right under Section 6(3) therefore prevailed.
Issues
- Whether a purchaser’s own pre-emption right defeated the claim of a person with a superior right.
- Whether the statutory comma could be read disjunctively to bar all claims against a purchaser covered by Section 6.
Provisions considered
- Sections 4 and 5(1)(c), Rajasthan Pre-emption Act, 1966Read the exclusion as barring equal or inferior claimants on transfer to a Section 6 purchaser, while preserving a superior claimant’s right. (¶¶ 10, 11, 13, 17, 18)
- Sections 6(1)(ii) and 6(3), Rajasthan Pre-emption Act, 1966Recognised both parties’ common-amenity rights but gave priority to the claimant nearer in relationship to the vendor. (¶¶ 12, 16, 18)
Held
- Where a purchaser has a Section 6 pre-emption right, Section 5(1)(c) prevents accrual only to a claimant with an equal or inferior right. A superior right can still prevail. Pre-emption is a weak preferential right of substitution, not an unrestricted bar on alienation. (¶¶ 11, 13, 14, 15)
- The purchaser’s right in the common courtyard was admitted, placing both parties within Section 6(1)(ii). The claimant nevertheless enjoyed priority under Section 6(3) because he was the vendor’s brother and nearer in relationship. (¶¶ 16, 18)
- The two segments of Section 5(1)(c) refer respectively to the purchaser and claimant. Substituting a disjunctive reading for the comma would amount to impermissible legislative redrafting. The concurrent decisions applied the provision correctly. (¶¶ 17, 18, 19)
Result
Appeal dismissed; decree of pre-emption upheld. No order as to costs.