MAHBOOB HASAN Vs. RAM BHAROSEY LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. The following two questions of law have been referred to us:-- 1. Whether a custom of pre-emption is void under Article 13 of the Constitution irrespective of the fact whether it gives a right of pre-emption to a shafi-i-sharik, a shafi-i-khalit or a shafi-i-jar? 2. Whether a custom of pre-emption is void under Article 13 of the Constitution in so far as it gives a right of pre-emption to a shafi-i-khalit who is merely the owner of an easementary right in the property sought to be pre-empted? 2. This reference has arisen out of two suits for pre-emption. Suit No. 584 of 1955 arose in district Bareilly. In that case Mohammad Nabi defendant, who was the owner of a certain house, sold it to Mahoob Hasan and Ayub Hasan, defendants Nos. 1 and 2 for Rs. 500. Ram Bharosey Lal filed the suit for acquiring the property basing his claim on his right of pre-emption. The learned Munsif City Bareilly, dismissed the suit on the ground that the custom of pre-emption was hit by Article 13 of the Constitution, and was void. That decision was reversed in appeal by the learned 1st. Additional Civil and Sessions Judge, Bareilly. He held that the plaintiff was entitled to pre-empt the property upon payment of Rs. 500. Against the decision a second appeal has been filed in his Court by Mahboob Hasan and Ayub Hasan defendants. This is second appeal No. 3473 of 1959.

(2.) SUIT No. 31 of 1956 arose in district Muzaffarnagar. In that case Sita Ram purchased certain property; and Atma Ram filed the suit for pre-emption. That suit was dismissed by the learned Munsif, Kairana on the ground that the custom of pre-emption is void under Art, 19 (1) (f) of the Constitution. That view was accepted in appeal by the learned Additional Civil Judge of Muzaffarnagar. Atma Ram's appeal was dismissed. Atma Ram has now come to this Court in second appeal. This is second appeal No. 623 of 1959.

(3.) IT will be seen that a person may claim the right of pre-emption on three separate grounds. As regards the validity of the law of pre-emption claimed by a shafi-i-sharik and shafi-i-jar, the point is now settled by two decisions of the Supreme Court. In Bhau Ram v. Baij Nath, AIR 1962 SC 1476, it was held that the law of pre-emption giving right of pre-emption to a co-sharer imposes a reasonable restriction which is in the interest of general public. If an outsider is introduced as a co-sharer in a property it will make common management extremely difficult and destroy the benefits of ownership in common.