BABULAL Vs. MATADEEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS case is having a chequered history. Suit was instituted for the pre-emption in the year 1967. During the pendency of the suit the permission was granted to construct the building to the present petitioner on the condition that in case the suit is decreed the defendant present petitioner will remove the construction. Defendant petitioner also gave an undertaking before the court that he should be permitted to construct and in case the decree is passed in favour of the present non-petitioner he shall remove the construction so made. Mr. Lodha counsel for the petitioner submits that the construction has been raised by the present petitioner during the pendency of the suit.- and his client will suffer irreparable loss. Undertakings given by the parties will have to be strictly complied with otherwise people will lose faith in judicial system. Mr. Lodha cannot agitate this point now in the execution particularly when a decree has been passed by this Court and the review petition has also been rejected by this court on 10. 1. 86.

(2.) MR. Lodha has first of all submitted that Banshidhar died during the pendency of the appeal and the court was not justified in bringing the legal representatives of the deceased Banshidhar on record. MR. Lodha has relied on the case of Nan Devi V. Kamal Chand (1 ).

(3.) I do not find any force in the submission made by Mr. Lodha of this point. Rajasthan Pre-emption Act, 1966 is practically similar to the Punjab Pre-emption Act and Hon'ble Supreme Court has also taken the view in the case cited above that the right of pre-emption is an inheritable right and it is not a personal right.