Summary
A pre-emptor who waived the right when the property was first sold after the Rajasthan Pre-Emption Act became operative could not revive it on a later sale. The Court rejected a recurring right for every successive transaction and restored dismissal of the pre-emption suit as barred by limitation. Its ruling concerns the same claimant’s surrendered right over the same property, rather than extinguishing every other person’s independent entitlement.
Issues
- Whether a claimant who did not exercise pre-emption on an earlier post-Act sale could invoke a fresh limitation period on a subsequent sale.
Provisions considered
- Sections 3, 6(1), 8, 9 and 21, Rajasthan Pre-Emption Act, 1966Read the substitution right, notice, loss of right and limitation provisions together to bar revival after the claimant’s waiver on an earlier transaction. (¶¶ 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23)
- First Schedule, Article 97, Limitation Act, 1963Rejected its construction as creating a fresh enforceable right for each later sale after the claimant had surrendered pre-emption. (¶¶ 15, 16, 22, 23)
Held
- Pre-emption is a weak right of substitution, not a proprietary right to the thing sold. The claimant must show a right superior to the vendee’s when exercising it, and legitimate methods may defeat it. (¶¶ 2, 12)
- The same person cannot treat pre-emption as a perpetual right revived on each sale after choosing not to exercise it on an earlier post-Act transaction. Section 9’s loss of right is related to the transaction and the claimant; allowing revival would create continuing uncertainty over title and later sales. (¶¶ 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22)
- Failure to challenge the sale of 5 November 1966 barred the original plaintiff’s later suit. The High Court erred in treating every sale as a fresh cause of action notwithstanding the earlier surrender of the right. (¶¶ 22, 23)
Result
Appeal allowed with parties bearing their own costs. High Court order set aside; trial court’s order dated 1 February 1988 and first appellate court’s order dated 30 March 1989 restored, ending the suit as barred by limitation.