Har Narain Vs. Chandgi etc. etc.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 4009 of 1982.
Petitioner: Har Narain
Respondent: Chandgi etc. etc.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 4009 of 1982.
Judges: O. CHINNAPPA REDDY & G.L. OZA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jan 09, 1987
Head Note:
SUIT FOR PRE-EMPTION :
Joint purchase of property – Suit for pre-emption filed against all the four joint purchasers – Only one person filed the appeal – If the suit which is one for pre-emption against all the joint purchasers is to be dismissed against one, it has to be dismissed against all – The Court set aside the decree passed against the non – appealing joint vendees under the provisions of Order 41, Rule 33 of C.P.C.
Cases Reffered:
Atam Prakash v. State of Haryana & Others (1986) 2 S.C.C. 249
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
In view of the judgment of this Court in Atam Prakash v. State of Haryana & Others (1986) 2 S.C.C. 249, this appeal has to be allowed and the suit for pre-emption has to be dismissed. The learned counsel for the respondents, however, urges that four of the persons who purchased the property along with the appellant Har Narain have not chosen to prefer the appeal and suit therefore cannot be dismissed in toto. It is difficult to agree with this submission. The purchase was a joint purchase and if the suit for pre-emption was filed against all the joint purchasers. The other joint purchasers are also parties before us though they have not preferred an appeal. If the suit which is one for pre-emption against all the joint purchasers is to be dismissed against one, it has to be dismissed against all. We do not see any difficulty in setting aside the decree passed against the non-appealing joint vendors also under the provisions of Order 41 Rule 33. The appeal is therefore allowed. No costs.
Appeal allowed.
In view of the judgment of this Court in Atam Prakash v. State of Haryana & Others (1986) 2 S.C.C. 249, this appeal has to be allowed and the suit for pre-emption has to be dismissed. The learned counsel for the respondents, however, urges that four of the persons who purchased the property along with the appellant Har Narain have not chosen to prefer the appeal and suit therefore cannot be dismissed in toto. It is difficult to agree with this submission. The purchase was a joint purchase and if the suit for pre-emption was filed against all the joint purchasers. The other joint purchasers are also parties before us though they have not preferred an appeal. If the suit which is one for pre-emption against all the joint purchasers is to be dismissed against one, it has to be dismissed against all. We do not see any difficulty in setting aside the decree passed against the non-appealing joint vendors also under the provisions of Order 41 Rule 33. The appeal is therefore allowed. No costs.
Appeal allowed.
