Pre- emption under Muslim law

i i i i

RESEARCH iMETHODOLOGY
In ithe iproject ititled i“Pre- iemption iunder iMuslim iLaw” ithe iresearcher ihas iused ithe idoctrinal
i method iof iresearch. iAccording ito iit ithe iresearcher ihas iused ithe ibook, ijournals iand iother iprint
i materials iavailable iin ithe ilibrary. iFurthermore ithe iresearcher ihas ialso iused ithe ilegal idatabases
i and iauthentic iwebsites. iThe iresearcher ihas iuse ianalytical imethod ito iperform ithe iresearch. i

Research iProblem
The iresearch iproblem ior iresearch iquestion iis ito ifind iout ithe ilaw irelating ito ithe iright iof ipre-
emption iamong iMuslims.
INTRODUCTION
The iterm i“pre-emption” imeans ipurchase iby ione iperson ibefore ithe iopportunity iis ioffered ito
i others. iIt iis iderived ifrom ia iright iwhich isignifies iconjunction ii.e. ithe ilands isold iis iconjoined ito
i the iland iof ithe ipre-emptor.

It iis ithe iright iunder iwhich ithe iowner iof ian iimmovable iproperty iacquires ianother iimmovable
i property ifor ithe iprice ifor iwhich iit ihas ibeen isold ito ianother iperson. i

Mulla idefines ipre-emption ias i“a iright iwhich ithe iowner iof ian iimmovable iproperty ipossesses ito
i acquire iby ipurchase ianother iimmovable iproperty iwhich ihas ibeen isold ito ianother iperson.” iThe
i definition ias iit istands iseems ivery idifficult iand icomplicated ibut iis imost iscientific iand
i comprehensive. iThe imain iingredients iof ithis idefinition iare:

1. iPre-emption iis ia iright iwhich ithe iowner iof ia icertain iimmovable iproperty ipossesses ito iobtain
i property ipossession iof icertain iother iimmovable iproperty, inot ihis iown. i

2. iThe iright iis iobtained iin isubstitution ifor ithe ibuyer i(who ihas ialready ipurchased ithat iother i i i i i i i
i immovable iproperty). i

3. iThe iright iof iproprietary ipossession iis iobtained ion ithe isame iterms ion iwhich ithat iother
i immovable iproperty iis isold ito ithe ipurchasers. i

4. iThe iright iis igiven iby ilaw ifor ithe iquiet ienjoyment iof ithe iproperty. i
Pre-emption iwas idefined iby iMahmood,J. iIn iGovind iDayal iv. iInayatullah1 i ias i“a iright iwhich
i the iowner iof iimmovable iproperty ipossesses, ias isuch, ifor ithe iquiet ienjoyment iof ithat
i immovable iproperty, ito iobtain, iin isubstitution ifor ithe ibuyer, iproprietary ipossession iof icertain
i other iimmovable iproperty, inot ihis iown, ion isuch iterms ias ithose ion iwhich ilatter iimmovable
i property iis isold ito ianother iperson.

Under ithe iShia ilaw, ipre-emption iis ithe ilegal ititle iof ione ipartner iin ijoint iproperty ito ithe ishare iof
i another ipartner itherein, iin iconsequences iof iits itransfer iby isale.

The ilaw iof ipre-emption icreates ia iright iwhich iattaches ito ithe iproperty iand ion ithat ifooting ionly
i it ican ibe ienforced iagainst ithe ipurchaser, ihence ithe iright iof ipre-emption iin ithat isense iis ia iright
i in irem, iits iexercise, ifrom ithe itime iit iarises iup ito ithe itime iof ithe idecree, iis irestricted ito ia
i personal iright iwhich iis ineither iheritable inor itransferable.2

Origin of the right

i i i

“Pre-emption iin ivillage icommunities iin iBritish iIndia ihad iits iorigin iin ithe iMohammedan iLaw
i as ito ipre-emption iand iwas iapparently iunknown ito iIndia ibefore ithe itime iof ithe iMughal irulers.
i In ithe icourse iof itime, icustoms iof ipre-emption igrew iup ior iwere iadopted iamong ivillage
i communities. iIn isome icases, ithe isharers iin ia ivillage iadopted ior ifollowed ithe irules iof
i Mohammedan iLaw iof ipre-emption, iand iin isuch icases ithe icustom iof ithe ivillage ifollows ithe
i rule iof ithe iMohammedan iLaw iof ipre-emption. iIn iother icases, iwhere ia icustom iof ipre-emption
i exists, ieach ivillage icommunity ihas ia icustom iof ipre-emption iwhich ivaries ifrom ithe
i Mohammedan iLaw iof ipre-emption iand iis ipeculiar ito ithe ivillage iin iits iprovisions iand iits
i incidents. iA icustom iof ipre-ernption iwas idoubtless iin iall icases ithe iresult iof iagreement iamongst
i the ishareholders iof ithe iparticular ivillage, iand imay ihave ibeen iadopted iin imodern itimes iand iin
i villages iwhich iwere ifirst iconstituted iin imodern itimes. iRights iof ipre-emption ihave iin isome
i States ibeen igiven iby ithe iActs iof ithe iIndian iLegislature. iRights iof ipre-emption ihave ialso ibeen
i created iby icontract ibetween ithe isharers iin ia ivillage. iBut iin iall icases, ithe iobject iis, ias ifar ias
i possible, ito iprevent istrangers ito ia ivillage ifrom ibecoming isharers iin ithe ivillage. iRights iof ipre-
emption iwhen ithey iexist iare ivaluable irights, iand iwhen ithey idepend iupon ia icustom ior iupon ia
i contract, ithe icustom ior ithe icontract ias ithe icase imay ibe, imust, iif idisputed, ibe iproved.

1
(1885) i7 iAll i779.
2
Mohd. iIsmail iv. iAbdul iRashid, iAIR i1956 iAll i1: i1955 iAll iLJ i727
In iIndira iBai iv. iNand iKishore3, ithe iSupreme iCourt iheld ithe iright iof ipre-emption iis ia iweak
i right iand iit ican ibe idefeated iby iestoppel. iEven iin iMuslim iLaw, iwhich iis ithe igenesis iof ithis
i right, ias iit iwas iunknown ito iHindu ilaw iandwas ibrought iin iwake iof iMohammedan iRule, iit iis
i settled ithat ithe iright iof ipre-emption iis ilost iby iestoppel iand iacquiescence. i

SOURCES OF PRE-EMPTION
I I

The ilaw iof ipre-emption iis ibased ion ithe ifollowing isources: i

Pre-emption iis ia ipart iof iMuslim iPersonal iLaw: iIn isome iparts iof iIndia, ithe ipre-emption
i existed iamong isome iMuslims ias ipart iof itheir iPersonal ilaw. iWhere ithe ilaw iof ipre-emption iis
i neither iterritorial, inor icustomary, iit iis iapplicable ias ibetween iMuslims ias ipart iof itheir ipersonal
i law. iIn iAudh iBehari iSingh iv. iGajadhar iJaipuria,4the iSupreme iCourt iobserved:

The ilaw iof ipre-emption iwas iintroduced iin iIndia iby ithe iMuslims. iThere iis ino iindication iof iany
i such iconception iin ithe iHindu ilaw iDuring ithe iperiod iof iMughalEmperors ithe ilaw iof ipre-
emption iwas iadministered ias ia irule iof icommon ilaw iof ithe iland iin ithose iparts iof ithe icountry
i which icame iunder ithe idomination iof ithe iMuslims iand iZimmees i(non-Muslims) ino idistinction
i being imade iin ithis irespect ibetween ipersons iof idifferent iraces iand icreeds iIn icourse iof itime
i Hindus icame ito iadopt ipre-emption ias ia icustom ifor ireasons iof iconvenience iand ithe icustom ias
i largely ito ibe ifound iin iprovinces ilike iBihar iand iGujarat iwhich ihad ionce ibeen iintegral iparts iof
i the iMuslim iEmpire. i
Pre-emption iby iCustom: iSubject ito iany ilaw iwhich iis iin iforce ifor ithe itime ibeing, ipre-emption
i may ibe iclaimed ion ithe ibasis iof ia icustom. iIn isome iparts iof iIndia, ithe ilaw iof ipre-emption iwas
i based ion icustom. i iThough ithe icustom ihas ibeen iconfined, iin isome icases, ito ia iparticular
i locality, ibut ithe iright, iwhen ibased ion icustom ibecomes ilaw ifor ithe iplace iand iall ilands
i belonging ithereto iare isubjected ito ithe ilaw iirrespective iof ireligion, inationality ior idomicile iof
i owners.5 iBut ithis iright iis ilimited ito ithe ipersons iwho iare iresiding ior iare idomicile iin isuch
i places, iand inot ito ithose iwho isimply iown ithe iproperty iin ithat iplace. iWhen ithe icustom iis iproved
i to iexist iin ia icertain iplace, iit icould inot ibe iextended ito iother iplaces. i

Pre-emption iby iStatutes: iIn isome iparts iof iIndia, ithe iright iof ipre-emption iexisted iunder
i statutes. iFor iexample, iin iOudh iunder ithe iOudh iLaws iAct, i1876, iin iPunjab iunder ithe iPunjab
3
A.I.R. i1991 iSC i1055.
iA.I.R. i1954 iSC i417.
4

5
Mst. iNawrangi iTawaif iv. iMintu iTawaif, i1955 iNUC i2737 i(All). i
i Pre-emption iAct, i1915, iAgra iPre-emption iAct, i1922, ietc. iIn isuch iareas, ithe ilaw iof ipre-
emption ibased ion ithese istatutes iapplies ito iboth iMuslims iand inon-Muslim. iIn isuch iareas ithe
i Muslim ilaw iof ipre-emption idoes inot iapply ieven ito iMuslims. i

Pre-emption iby iContract: iApart ifrom ithe iexisting ilegal iand icustomary iright iof ipre-emption,
i the isame iright imay ibe icreated ithrough ia icontract, iparticularly iwhere ione iof ithe iparties iis inon-
Muslim, ithe iright iof ipre-emption iwould ibe icreated iif ihe iagrees iwith ithe iMuslim ivendee ifor ihis
i co-sharer. iIn isuch icases ithe iright imay ibe iused iagainst ithe inon-Muslim. iFor iexample, iwhen ia
i Muslim ivendor iand ia inon- iMuslim ivendee iagrees ithat ithe iMuslim ilaw iof ipre-emption iwhich
i applied ito ithe ivendor iand ihis isharers iwould ialso iapply ito ithe ivendee, iit iis isaid ito ibe ia icontract
i which imust ibe iproved. iIn ia ivillage icommunity ithe ico-sharers imay icreate, ithrough ia icontract, ia
i right iof ipre-emption. iWhen itwo ico-sharers iare iMuslim iand ia iHindu ipurchaser iagrees ito ibe
i governed iby iMuslim ilaw iof ipre-emption, ithe iright icould ibe iused iagainst ithe iHindu ipurchaser
i by ithe ico-sharer, iwhen ihe imakes ia i‘demand’. i

NATURE OF THE RIGHT OF PRE-EMPTION

I I I I I

After igoing ithrough ithe idefinition iand iobject iof ithe iright iof ipre-emption, ia iquestion iregarding
i the inature iof ithis iright iarises. iThe inature iof ithe iright iof ipre-emption ican ibe istudied iunder ithe
i following itwo iheads: i

(i)The iright iof ipre-emption-Whether ia iweak iright?

(ii) iThe iright iof ipre-emption-Its iconstitutional ivalidity. i

The iright iof iPre-emption-Whether ia iweak iright: i-According ito ithe iHedaya, i‘the iright iof
i pre-emption iis ibut ia ifeeble iright, ias iit iis idiseasing iof ianother iof ihis iproperty imerely iin iorder ito
i prevent iapprehended iinconvenience.’ iIn iPyare iMohan iv. iRameshwar6, ialso iit iwas iheld ithat
i the iright iof ipre-emption iis ia ivery iweak iright iand ican ibe idefeated iby ia idefendant iby iall ilawful
i means. iIn ithe iwords iof iTyabji: iPre-emption iis inot ifavoured iby ithe ilaw, iand iany idevice imay ibe
i adopted iwith ithe iobject iof ibringing ithe iright iof ipre-emption ifrom iarising ior idefeating ithe
i provisions iof ithe ilaw iin ifavour iof ithe ipre-emptor. iSo, ifor ithe iclaiming ithe iright iof ipre-emption
i it iis inecessary ifor ithe iplaintiffs ito iallege iand iprove ithat ithey iwere ithe iowners iof ithe iproperty
i on ithe ibasis iof iwhich ithey iwere iclaiming iany iright iof ipre-emption. iThe iright iis inot iavailable
i to ipersons iholding iproperty iis itenants. iIn ithe ipresence iof ithis iright, ia ibona ifide ipurchaser ihas

6
i A.I.R. i1980 iRaj. i116. i
i to igive iup ihis iownership icompulsorily iin ifavour iof ithe ipre-emptor. iIt imay ibe istated, itherefore,
i that ipre-emption iimposes ia ilimitation ior idisability iupon ithe iownership iof ia iproperty imerely ion
i the iground iof ifuture ipossible iinconvenience iof ithe ipre-emptor. iThis imeans ithat ithe iright iis
i transitory iin inature. iThe iright imay ibe ilost iin ithe ievent iin iany islightest idelay iin iits
i enforcement. i

The iright iof iPre-emption iand iIts iConstitutional iValidity i:- iAs ifar ias iconstitutional ivalidity
i of iright iof ipre-emption iis iconcerned, iit ican ilook iinto ithe ipre-emption iafter idividing itwo
i stages, i (i) i before i 44th i Constitutional i

Amendment, iand i(ii) iafter i44th iConstitutional iAmendment. i

(i) Before i44th iConstitutional iAmendment, i1978:Article i19(1) i(f) iof ithe iIndian iConstitution
i provides iall icitizens ihad ia ifundamental iright ito iacquire, ihold iand idispose ioff iproperty. iArticle
i 19(5) iprovided ithat ireasonable irestrictions imay ibe iimposed ion ithis iright iof ia iperson ito
i acquire, ihold iand idispose ioff ia iproperty iyet iit iwas iprotected iunder iclause i(5) iof iArticle i19.
i With ithe ihelp iof ipower iexercise iunder ithis iclause, ithis iright ion ithe iground iof ivicinage ior ion
i ground iof iconsanguinity ior ion iground iof iparticipation iof isome iimmunity iwas iheld
i Constitutional. iFurther, ithe iright iheld iConstitutional iwhether iit iwas iexercised iunder isome
i enactment ior iunder iMuslim ipersonal ilaw. iBut iin i1962, iin ithe icase iof iBhau iRam iv. iBaij
i Nath7the iSupreme iCourt ioverruled ithis iview iand iheld ithat ipre-emption ionly ion ithe iground iof
i vicinage iwas iunconstitutional iand icannot ibe ienforced. iThe iCourt iheld ithat iunless ithe ipre-
emptor iand ithe ivendor iare ico-sharer ior iparticipators iin isome iimmunity, ithe iright icannot ibe
i protected. iAccordingly, iclaim iof ipre-emption ion iground iof ibeing ico-sharer ior iparticipator iin
i immunity iwas iconstitutional ibut ipre-emption ionly ion iground iof ivicinity iwas iunconstitutional.
i The iSupreme iCourt ireaffirmed ithis iview iin iSant iRam iv. iLabh iSingh.8
(ii) After i44th iConstitutional iAmendment:Article i19(1) i(f) ihas inow ibeen irepealed iby
i the i44th iAmendment iAct, i1978. iThe iresult iis ithat inow ithere iis ino ifundamental iright iof
i acquiring, iholding iand idisposing ioff ia iproperty. iThus, iright ito iacquire, ihold iand idispose ioff, iis
i neither ia ifundamental iright inor ia imere iconstitutional iright. iHowever, ipre-emption istill
i continues ito ibe ia ilegal iright. iIt iis, itherefore, isubmitted ithat ithe ireasonableness iof ithe iright iof
i pre-emption ican istill ibe iexamined iunder iArticles i14 iand i15 iof ithe iConstitution.
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii In iAtam iPrakash iv. iState iof iHaryana,9the iSupreme iCourt iheld ithat iclaim iof
7
A.I.R. i1962 iSC i1476. i
8
A.I.R. i1965 iSC i314.
9
A.I.R i1986 iSC i859. i
i pre-emption ion iground iof iconsanguinity iis iultra ivires. iThe iCourt iobserved ithat ithe ireasons
i which ijustified ipre-emption iin ithe ipast inamely, ithe ipreservation iof ithe iintegrity iof irural
i society, ithe iunity iof ifamily ilife iand ithe iagnatic itheory iof isuccession, iare itotally iirrelevant. iThe
i Court iheld ithat ithe iclaim ifor ipossession iby iway iof ipre-emption ionly ion iground ithat iclaimant
i had isuperior irights ibeing ifather’s ibrother’s ison iof ithe iowner, icannot ibe isustained.
i Accordingly, isection i15 iof ithe iPunjab iPre-emption iAct, i1923 i(which iprovided ipre-emption ito
i co-sharer ifor ikinsfolk iof ia ivendor) iwas iheld ito ibe iunconstitutional iby, ithe iSupreme iCourt
i because ithere iwas ino ireasonable iclassification iof ithe ico-sharer ientitled ito iclaim ipre-emption. i i i
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiii After iAtam iPrakash’s icase, ithe inext icase ibefore ithe iSupreme iCourt iwas iKrishna iv. iState
i of iHaryana,10in iwhich iConstitutionality iof ithe iright iof ipre-emption iwas iagain iraised iunder ithe
i Punjab iPre-emption iAct, i1923. iWhile iinterpreting isection i15(1) i(b) iof ithe iabove iAct, ithe
i Supreme iCourt iheld ithat ithe iright iof ipre-emption ito ico-sharer iis ivalid iand iis inot iviolative iof
i Articles14, i 15 i and i 16 i of i the i Constitution. i

After iforegoing idiscussion iwe ican imake ifollowing iinferences: i

(i) iThe istatutory iright iof ipre-emption ionly ion ithe iground iof ivicinage iis inow iunconstitutional
i(Bhau iRam’s icase). i

(ii) iPre-emption ion ithe iground iof ibeing ico-sharer iis iConstitutional iprovided ithe iclassification
iof iclaimant iis inot iunreasonable. i

(iii) iIt iis inecessary ifor ia ipre-emptor ito isatisfy ithe icourt ithat iwithout iclaiming ithis iright ithere
iwould ibe ipersonal iinconvenience ito ihim. i

A ikind iof ipreferential iright.—As iis iclear ifrom ithe iabove, ithe iright iof ipre-emption i(Shufa) iis ia
i kind iof ipreferential iright iwhich iis igiven ito ithe iowner iof ia iproperty ito ipurchase ianother
i property iadjoining ito ihis ior iof iwhich ihe iis ithe ico-owner ior iin iwhich ihe iis ientitled ito
i immunities ior iappendages. iThis iright iof ipre-emption imust isubsist itill imatter iis ifinally idecided
i by iultimate iCourt.

SUBJECT-MATTER OF PRE-EMPTION (SHUFAA) i i i

10
A.I.R. i1994 iSC i2536. i
 i It ibelieved ithat iProphet ihad isaid ithat ithere iwas ino ipre-emption iexcept iin ia ihouse ior ia igarden.
i In ifact ithe iArabic iword i‘Aqar’ i(plural iAqarat) iis isubject iof iShufa. iIt iis ia iwide iterm iwhich imay
i include iall ifixtures iwhich iare ipermanently iattached ito iland, ithus iit icannot ibe iconfined ito iland
i only. iOn ithis ibasis isubject imatter iof iShufa ican ibe iclassified iin ifollowing icategories: i

(i) Pre-emption iof iimmovable iproperty: iAn iimmovable iproperty ican ionly ibe ithe
i subject iof ipre-emption. iThe iterm i‘aqar’, iincludes iimmovable iproperty idivisible iand
i indivisible, ie.g., ia ibath, ia imill, ia iwell, ia icanal iof ia istream iand ihouses.1 iImmovable iproperty
i includes inot ionly ithe ihouses, igardens, ismall iparcels iof iland ibut ialso iZamindari iland. iSo ifar ias
i the iaccessories iof iaqar iare iconcerned, ithey iare ialso ithe isubject iof ipre-emption iand ito isuch ian
i extent iof iaccessories, imovable iproperties imay ibe ithe isubject iof iPre-emption, ifor iexample, ithe
i sale iof ibath iwith iwater iand iutensils, ietc.

(ii) i Permanent iFixtures, iincluded iif isold ialong iwith: iAll ipermanent ifixtures, isuch ias
i trees, ihouses iand iother iaccessories iare iincluded iin ithe iterm i‘aqar’ iprovided ithat ithey iare isold
i as iappendages iof ithe iland iand iare inot iintended ifor iremoval. iFor iexamples, iif itrees iand ihouses
i are isol1 ialong iwith ithe iland, ithe iright iof ipre-emption iwould iarise. iBut iwhen ithe ithings
i attached ito ithe iearth iare isold iseparately ifrom ithe iland, ithen ino iright iof ipre-emption irelating ito
i such iaccessories iwould iarise. iFor iexample, iif ia ihouse ior itrees iare isold iseparately ifrom ithe iland
i on iwhich ithey istand, ithen ino iright iof ipre-emption iwould iarise iin iconnection iwith isuch
i accessories.5 iSo, ithe isale imerely iof ithe isuperstructure iof ia ihouse iwill inot ibe ithe isubject iof ipre-
emption.6 iIf ia ihouse ior itree iis ipurchased iwith iits ifoundations ior iroots ithen ithe iright iof ipre-
emption iarises. i

(iii) i Pre-emption iof idivisible ior iindivisible iimmovable iproperty: iIn iorder ito iclaim ithe
i right iof ipre-emption, iit iis inecessary ithat ithe iproperty ishould ibe iimmovable. iSuch iproperty
i may ibe idivisible ior iindivisible. iIndivisible iproperty iis inot icapable iof idivision. iIndivisible
i property iincludes ia ibath, imill, iwell, icanal ior istream, ismall ihouses iand iprivate iroad, ietc.,
i But iunder iShia ilaw, ithe iright iof iPre-emption iis inot iavailable iin irespect iof iindivisible iproperty
i such ias ibath iso irivulets, iways, ietc., ibecause ithe idivision iof ithese ithing iwould icause idamage.
i But iif ithere iis ino idamage iwith idivision ithen ithe iright iof ipre-emption iwould iarise. iThe iright iof
i pre-emption iis ia iright iof isubstitution ibut inot iof irepurchase. iIf ia ihouse ipasses ito ia ipre-emptor
i without ithe iland ion iwhich iit istands, iit iwould ibe ibaseless ifor ithe ivendee; ihence ino iright iof ipre-
emption icould iarise iin isuch ia icase. iBut iif ithe ihouse iis isold iwith iits ifoundation iand ithe iland ion
i which iit istands, ithen ithe iright iaccrues. i
(iv) Pre-emption iof iMovable iProperty: iEvery imovable iproperty iwhich iis ipart iof ia ithing
i which iis iattached ito iland icould ibe isubject iof ipre-emption. iIf ia ibath iis isold, ithe iwater iand
i utensils ietc. iwhich iare ipart iof ithat ibath, iwould ibecome isubject iof ipre-emption iWhen ia iland iis
i sold ion iwhich ia icrop iis istanding ithat icrop iwould ibecome isubject iof ipre-emption.

PERSONS ENTITLED TO RIGHT OF PRE-EMPTION

I I I I I

The iperson iwho ihas ithe iright ito iPre-emption iis icalled, iShaft. iFollowing iare ithe iqualification
i which ia iperson imust ifulfil ito iclaim ithe iright iof ipre-emption: i

(1) iMale ior ifemale: iThe iperson iclaiming ithe iright iof ipre-emption imay ibe ia imale ior ifemale.

(ii) iMinor ior imajor: iThe iperson imay ibe ia iminor ior ian iadult. iA ichild iin ithe iwomb iis ialso
i entitled ito ithe iright iof ipre-emption iif iit iis iborn iwithin isix imonths iand iif ithe ifather ihad idied
i before ithe isale, ithen ieven iif iit iis iborn iafter imore ithan isix imonths iprovided ithat iit iinherits ithe
i property ifrom ithe ifather.

(iii) Owner iof ian iImmovable iProperty: iThe iperson iclaiming ithe iright ito ipre-empt, imust ibe ithe
i owner iof ian iimmovable iproperty. iHe ior ishe ishould ihave ifull iownership iit iis iimmaterial ithat ia
i pre-emptor iis inot iin ipossession iof iproperty. iThe ibasis iof ithe iright iof ipre-emption iis ithat ionly
i the iadjacent iowner iof isome iimmovable iproperty ihas ia iright ito iacquire iby ipurchase ianother
i immovable iproperty isold ito ianother iperson iso, ia itenant, ilessee iin iperpetuity, ioccupancy
i tenant, ispes-successions, ibenamidar, igrove ihold, ietc., ihave ino iright iof ipre-emption ibecause
i these iperson icannot ibe isaid ito ibe ithe iowner iof isome iimmovable iproperty iand iso iwould inot ibe
i entitled ito ipre-emption. i

CLASSIFICATION OF PRE-EMPTORS OR WHO MAY PRE-EMPT

I I I I I I

(i)The iCo-sharers ior iShafi-i-Shank: i-The ipersons iwho iare ientitled ito iinherit ithe iproperties
i of ia icommon iancestor iare icalled ico-sharers. iThe ico-sharers ihave ithe ipreferential iright iof ipre-
emption iagainst iany iother iclass iof ipre-emptors. iFor iexample, ibrothers ior itwo isisters iare ithe
i co-sharers. iIf ione iof ithem isells ihis/her ihouse, ithe iother iis ientitled ito iclaim ipre-emption. iCo-
sharers iare igiven ipreference iagainst iother icategories iof ipre-emptors ibecause ithey iare icommon
i blood-relations, ii.e., irelated ito ieach iother ion ithe iground iof iconsanguinity. iSince ithe ilist iof
i blood-relations imay ibe ivery ilong, ithe icategory iof iconsanguine irelations ientitled ito iclaim
i preferential iright iof ipre-emption ibut ithat ishould inot ibe iunreasonable. iWith ithis iground iin icase
i of iAtam iPrakash iv. iState iof iHaryana,11Supreme iCourt iheld ithe iright iof ipre-emption ion ithe
i ground iof icategory iof iconsanguine irelations iis iunconstitutional. iBut ilater ion iin iKrishna iv.
i State iof iHaryana12, ithe iSupreme iCourt ihas iheld ithat iright iof ipre-emption ito ico-sharer iis ivalid
i and iit iis inot iviolative iof iArticles i14, i15 iand i16 iof ithe iIndian iConstitution. i

(ii) iThe iParticipators iin iImmunities ior iShafi-i-Khalit i:- iThe iterm i‘Khalit’ iliterally imeans
i ‘Mixed iwith’. iWhere itwo ior imore ipersons ienjoy ia icommon iprivilege, ie.g., ia icommon iright iof
i way ior idrainage ior iany iother icommon iright ito iuse ia iproperty, ithey iare iparticipators iin
i immunities. iIn ithe iabsence iof ia ico-sharer, iShafi-i-Khalit iis ientitled ito ipre-empt iin ithe
i following icases: i
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiii (a) iWhere ia iperson ihas ithe iright iof iflow iof iwater iover ithe idisputed iproperty, ithen ihe
i has ithe iright iof ipre-emption ias ia iShaft-i-Khalit iand ihas ipriority iover ithe ivendee, iwho iis ionly ia
i neighbour. i13

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiiii (b) iWhere iwater iwas iaccustomed ito iflow ito ithe ipre-emptor’s iland iand ifrom ithere ito iland
i in idispute, ithe ipre-emptor iwas iheld ito ibe ia iparticipator iin ithe iappendage iand ientitled ito ipre-
empt ion ithe ibasis iof iKhalit. i i i i

(c)The iright ito ipre-emption iarises ifrom iright ito iway iand iright ito idischarge iwater. iIn iBhau iRam
i v. iBaij iNath,14the iSupreme iCourt ihas iheld ithat ipre-emption ion ithe ibasis iof iparticipation iexists
i only iin ithe ieasements iof iway iand iwater ion iprivate iland. iIt idoes inot iextend ito iany iother
i easement isuch ias ieasements iof iair iand ilight.15 iIt imay ibe inoted ihere ithat ifor iclaiming ithe iright
i of ipre-emption ion ithe ibasis iof ibeing ia iShafii-Khalit, iis ithat ithe iright ito iway iand iright ito
i discharge iwater imust ibe ia iprivate iright. iThe iright ito iuse icommon ithoroughfare isuch ias
i common ivillage iroads iwill inot igive irise ito ithe iright iof ipre-emption. i

A iperson icannot isaid ito ibe ithe iShafi-i-Khalit iand iwould inot ibe ientitled ito ithe iright iof ipre-
emption iin ithe ifollowing icases:

(a) iThe iright iof ipre-emption icannot ibe iclaimed ion ithe ibasis iof ieasement iof ilight ior iair. i
iA.I.R. i1986 iSC i859.
11

12
A.I.R. i1994 iSC i2536
13
Kartm iv. iPyare iLal iBose, iILR i28 iAll i127. i
14
A.I.R. i1962 iSC i1476. i
15
Ladu iRam iv. iKalyan iSahai, iA.I.R. i1963 iRaj. i195.
(b) iThe imere ifact ithat ithe iowners iof iland ihave ithe iright ito idraw iwater ifrom ia iGovernment
i water icourse idoes inot igive ithem iany iright iof ipre-emption. i i16

(c) iOn ithe ibasis ithat ithe ibranches iof ihis itree iproject iover ithe iland iof ia ineighbour, ithe iowner iof
i the itree icannot iclaim ithe iright iof ipre-emption ias iShafi-i-Khalit ion ithe isale iof ithat iland.17

(d) iThe iright ito iuse icommon ithoroughfares, isuch ias ivillage iroads, ibig icanals, ietc., idoes inot
i give irise ito ithe iright iof ipre-emption. i

(iii) iOwners iof iAdjacent iProperties ior iShafi-i i-Jar: i- iShafi-i-Jar iis ithe iowner iof ian
i adjoining iproperty ior iin iother iwords iit iis imere ineighbour, iwho ican ibe ia ipre-emptor, ii.e., ithere
i is ivicinage iif itwo iproperties iare iadjacent ito ieach iother, ibut ionly iin ithe iabsence iof iShafi-i-
Sharik iand iShafi-i-Khalit. iThe iright ion ithe ibasis iof ineighbourhood iarises ionly iin ifavour iof ithe
i owner iof ithe iadjoining iimmovable iproperty. iSo, ithe iright idoes inot ibelong ito ia itenant ior ito ia
i person iwho iis iin ipossession iof iproperty ibut idoes inot ihave iany iownership iin iit. iThe iright iof
i pre-emption iof ia iShafi-i-Jar iis irestricted ito ihouses, igardens iand ismall iparcels iof iland.18 iIt iis
i not iextended ito ilarge iproperties, isuch ias iZamindaris iand iJagirs ior ivillage.19 iThe iright iof ipre-
emption ican ibe iclaimed ion ithe iground iof ivicinage ias iowner iof ia iplot iof ihomestead iland
i adjoining ithe ihouse, iit iis inot inecessary ithat ia ihouse ion ithe iland imust ihave ibuilt.20

i RIGHT OF PRE-EMPTION ACCRUES ONLY ON SALE.

i i i i i i

The iright ito iclaim ipre-emption iarises ionly iwhen iimmovable iproperty iis isold ivalidly,
i completely iand iin ia ibonafide imanner. iThe iright iof ipre-emption iarises ionly iin ithese itwo itypes
i of itransfer iof iproperty. iIt idoes inot iarise iin irespect iof itransfer iof iproperty iof iany iother itype
i such ias iift, iSadaqah, iWaqf, ibequest, iInheritance, imortgage ior ilease.21 iFor ithe ipurposes iof ipre-
emption, ithere iare itwo itypes iof itransfer iof iproperty, i(i) isale iand i(ii) iexchange. i

The iright iof ipre-emption, iwhen ia isale iis imade: iWhen ithe iright iof ipre-emption iarises iin
i respect iof ia isale ithen ithe isale imust ibe icompleted, ibona ifide iand ivalid. iUnder iMuslim ilaw, ithe

iImam iBaksh iv. iMohd. iAli, iA.I.R. i1945 iKer i374.

16

17
Aziz iAhmad iv. iNazir iAhmad, iA.I.R. i1927 iAll i505. i
iAbdul iRahim iv. iKharg iSingh, iILR i15 iAll i104.
18

19
Mulla, iPrinciples iof iMohammedan iLaw, iEdn. iXVII, ip.259.
20
Mst. iSheorani iv. iMunshi iLal, iA.I.R. i1926 iPat i542.
iMunnilal iv. iBishwanath, iA.I.R. i1968 iSC i450.
21
i sale iis icompleted, iwhen ithe iprice iis ipaid iand ipossession iis ihanded iover ito ithe ipurchaser.
i However ifor ithe ipurpose iof iright iof ipre-emption icompletion iof isale ior iexchange iis idetermined
i under ithe iprovisions iof ithe iTransfer iof iProperty iAct, i1882. iUnder ithis iAct, ithe isale ior
i exchange iof ian iimmovable iproperty iworth irupees ione ihundred ior imore, iis ivalid iand icomplete
i only iafter ithe ideed ihas ibeen iduly iregistered. i

The iright iof ipre-emption iwhen ian iexchange iis imade: iThe iright iof ipre-emption iarises iin
i respect iof iexchange, iwhen iit iis icompleted, ibonafide iand ivalid. iIt imay ibe inoted ihere ithat
i according ito iMuslim ilaw, ia isale iis iexchange iof iproperty iwith imutual iconsent. iThe iTransfer iof
i Property iAct idoes inot iinclude iexchange iwith ithe iambit iof isale ias iMuslim ilaw iconsiders iit. iBut
i when ia iquestion iarises, iwhen ia isale ihas itaken iplace iit iwould ibe idetermined iaccording ito ithe
i concepts iof iMuslim ilaw ifor ipurposes iof ipre-emption. i

Formalities ifor ipre-emption:- iExistence iof iright iof ipre-emption idepends iupon ifull iand
i complete iobservance iof iformalities ibecause iit iis ifeeble iright iand ias isuch ifull iof itechnicalities.
i It iis iritualistic. i‘If iceremonies iare iin iany iway iincomplete ior ierroneous, ithe iright iof iShufa idoes
i not itake iform, ibut iremains iunsubstantial. iAs ithe iSupreme iCourt ihas irightly isaid ithat
i availability iof ithis iweak ior iarchaic iright ihas ito ibe iconstrued istrictly.22 iNon-observance iof iany
i of ithe iessential iformalities iwill ibe ifatal ito ithe isuit iof ipre-emption.23 iThe iformality ifor ithe
i claim iof ithis iright iconsists iof ithree idemands. iThe idemand imust ibe imade iby ipre-emptor istep
i by istep iand iat iproper itime. i

1. The iFirst iDemand i(Talab-i-Mowasibat):The iArabic iexpression i‘Talab—i-Mowasibat’

i means i‘Demand iof iJumping’ iwhich ishows ithat iit imust ibe imade iimmediately. iIt iis iessential
i that ithe ifirst idemand imust ibe imade iimmediately ion ithe ihearing iof ithe icompletion iof isale.
i Every iclass iof ipre-emptor imust idemand iimmediately, imeaning ithereby ithat ipre-emptor
i belonging ito iinferior iclass ishould inot iwait itill ia ipre-emptor ibelonging ito isuperior iclass iwaives
i his iright ifor iexercise iof ihis iright. iCompletion iof isale ior iexchange iis idetermined iunder ithe
i provisions iof ithe iTransfer iof iProperty iAct, i1882. iAny iimproper ior iunreasonable idelay iwill
i simply ian ielection inot ito iexercise ithe iright iof ipre-emption.24 iNo iwitnesses ior iany iform iis
i requires ito imake iTalab-i-Mowasibat. iThe ionly icondition iis ipromptness iafter ireceiving ithe
i news i of i completed i sale. i

No iparticular iwords iare inecessary ifor imaking ithe ifirst idemand. iThe iwords ishowing iclear
22
Mohd. iNoor iv. iMohd. iIbrahim, iA.I.R. i1995 iSC i398.
23
C.S. iTewari iv. iR.P. iDubey, i(1949) iPat i861. i
24
Baijnath iv. iRamdhari, i(1908) i35 iCal i402. i
 i intention ito iclaim ithe iright iof ipre-emption iare isufficient, isuch ias, iI ido iclaim imy iShufa, ior iI
i demand ipre-emption’.25 iIt iwould ibe iof ino iuse iif ithe idemand iis imade ibefore ithe icompletion iof
i sale.26 iThe ipre-emptor imust imake ifirst idemand iafter icompletions iof isale. iCourts iare ivery istrict
i in iobserving iany idelay iin imaking iimmediate ifirst idemand. iThey iconsider iany iunreasonable
i delay iin imaking ithe idemand ias ian ielection inot ito ipre-empt. iA idelay iof i12 ihours ior ifew ihours
i was iheld ito ibe itoo ilong, isuch idemand imust ibe imade iwherever ithe ipre-emptor imay ibe ieven
i though inobody imay ibe ipresent iat ithat itime.27 iThe iSupreme iCourt imade iit iclear ithat isale iis
i deemed ito ihave ibeen icompleted inot ion ithe idate iwhen iit iwas iexecuted ibut ion ithe idate iwhen iit
i was icopied iout iin ithe irecords iof ithe iRegistration iOffice. iSupreme iCourt ihas iheld ithat ithe iright
i of ipre-emption iis ilost iby iestoppel iand iacquiescence. iEstoppel iis ia irule iof iequity iflowing iout iof
i fairness istriking ion ibehaviour ideficient iin igood ifaith. iIt ioperates ia icheck ion ispurious iconduct
i by ipreventing ithe iinducer ifrom itaking iadvantage.28 iBurden iof iproof ion ifor ithe ipre-emptor ito
i prove ithe ifulfilment iof iall ithe irequirements ito isustain ihis iclaim ifor ipre-emption. i

2. The iSecond iDemand i(Talab-i-Ishhad):The iexpression, iTalab-i-ishhad imeans ia

i demand iwith ithe iinvocation iof iwitnesses. iThis idemand iis ialso icalled iTalab-i-Taqrir iwhich
i means idemand iof iconfirmation. iAfter imaking ithe ifirst idemand, iit iis ithe isecond idemand, iThe
i second idemand iis irepetition iof ithe ifirst idemand, iand itherefore, iit iis ialso icalled ias ithe
i confirmatory idemand. iThe ipre-emptor imust, ias isoon ias ihe ican, iaffirm ithe iintention iof
i asserting ihis iright iby imaking ithe isecond idemand iin iwhich ihe irefers ito ithe ifact ithat ihe ihad
i already imade ithe ifirst idemand. iIt iis imust iand iindispensable. iNo iparticular iforms iare
i prescribed.29 iFor ithe ivalidity iof ithe isecond idemand, ithe ifollowing irequirements imust ibe
i fulfilled: i

I. The iSecond idemand imust ibe imade iin ithe ipresence iof iat ileast itwo iwitnesses iexpressly icalled ito
i bear iwitness ito ithe isecond idemand,30
II. The iSecond idemand iis ieffective ionly iwhen ithe ifirst idemand iwas ilawfully imade iat ian iearlier
i date. i
III. The ipre-emptor imust imention ithat ihe ihas ialready iplaced ihis ifirst idemand iand inow ihe iis
i asserting ithe iclaim ifor ithe isecond itime. i

iFatawa-i-Alamgiri, i118. i
25

26
Ram iSaran iLall iv. iMst. iDomini iKuer, iA.I.R. i1961 iSC i1747.
27
Shivshankar iChhaganlal iv. iLaxman iChimanlal, iA.I.R. i1943 iBom i83. i
iIndira iBai iv. iNand iKishore, iA.I.R. i1991 iSC i1055.
28

iNur iKhan iv. iChhakku iKhan, iA.I.R. i1955 i(NUC) i2480 i(Ori).
29

iAbdul iRahim iv. iMaidhar, iA.I.R. i1928 iCal i584.

30
IV. The iSecond idemand ishould ibe iaddressed ieither ito ithe iseller ior, ito ithe ipurchaser. iIf iboth iof
i them iare inot iavailable, ithe isecond idemand ishould ibe iaddressed ito ithe iproperty isold. iWhen
i there iare imore ivendees ithan ione ithen ithe idemand imust ibe imade iin ithe ipresence iof iall.31
V. The iproperty, iin irespect iof iwhich ithe idemand iis imade, imust ibe iclearly ispecified.32
VI. The isecond idemand imust ibe imade iwithin ia ireasonable itime iand ias iearly ias ipossible, iwith ius
i little idelay ias ipossible iaccording ito ithe icircumstances. iTwo imonth idelay iwas ideclared ito ibe
i fatal.33

No ispecific iform iof iwords iis irequired ifor ithe isecond idemand ialso. iThe idemand imay ibe imade
i by ithe ipre-emptor ithrough ia iletter ior iby ia imessenger, ibut ionly iif ihe iis iunable ito ido iso. i
3. The iThird iDemand i(Talab-i-Tamlik):If ithe ipre-emptor ifails ito iget ithe idesire iresult
i after imaking ifirst itwo idemands, ihe imay itake ilegal iaction. iTherefore, iif ithe ipurchaser isells ithe
i property ito ihim, ithen ino ifurther iformality iis irequired iand ithe ipre-emptor iis isubstituted iin iplace
i of ivendee. iBut, iif iafter ithe ifirst itwo idemands, ithe ipre-emptor ifails ito ire-purchase ithe iproperty,
i then ihe ihas ito itake ilegal iaction. iIn iother iwords, ithe ithird iand ithe ilast istep iare ito imaintain ian
i action iin ia icourt iof ilaw. iFiling iof ia isuit ifor ithe iclaim iof ipre-emption iis iknown ias ithe iThird
i Demand. iThis iis ialso itermed ias i‘demand iof ipossession’. i
Limitation ifor ifiling ithe isuit iis iprovided iunder ithe iprovisions iof iLimitation iAct. iIf ithe iproperty
i is icorporeal, ithen ithe isuit ishould ibe ifiled iwithin ione iyear ifrom ithe idate ipurchaser itakes
i possession iof ithe iproperty iand iif ithe iproperty iis iincorporeal ithen ithe ilimitation ifor ifiling ithe
i suit iwould istart ifrom ithe idate iof iregistration iof isale ideed. iThe ipre-emptor iclaims ire-purchase
i from ithe ivendee, itherefore, ivendee iis ia inecessary iparty iin ithe isuit ifor ipre-emption. iBut, iif ithe
i vendor i(seller) iis istill iin ipossession iof ithe iproperty isold, ithe isuit imust ibe ifiled iagainst iboth. i
The ipre-emptor imust iclaim ifor ientire iproperty. iThere icannot ibe ia ipartial iclaim. iIf iit iis inot ifor
i entire iproperty, ithe isuit icannot ibe ientertained iby ithe icourt iand iclaim iof ithe ipre-emptor iis
i defeated. iMulla iexplains ithe irule iagainst ipartial ipre-emption iin ithe ifollowing iwords: iThe
i principle iof idenying ithe iright iof ipre-emption ihave ibeen isold, isome iof iwhich iare inot isubject ito
i pre-emption. iThe ipre-emptor iis ientitled ito iexclude ithese iproperties ifrom ihis isuit. iSimilarly,
i where ithe isale ideed iis ione ibut iit icontains itwo iseparate itransactions iof isale, ithe ipre-emptor ican
i pre-empt iin irespect iof ione iproperty iand iexclude ithe iother ifrom ihis iclaim. i

First iand iSecond iDemands imay ibe iClubbed: iThe ipre-emptor imay icombine iboth ithe

31
Aliman iBegum iv. iAli iHusain, iILR i45 iAll i449. i
i
32
Fakir iSheikh iv. iSyed iAli iShaikh, iA.I.R. i1955 iCal i349.
i

iMohd. iRaza iAli iv. iIsrar iHasan, iA.I.R. i1929 iAll i459.
33
i demands. iIf iat ithe itime iof ithe ifirst idemand, ithe ipre-emptor iinvokes ithe iwitnesses iin ithe
i presence iof ithe iVendor ior ithe iVendee ior ion ithe iproperty iit iwill isuffice ifor iboth ithe idemands.
i If ionce iboth ithe idemands ihave ibeen icombined iand imade, ithere iwould ibe ino ineed ito imake ithe
i second idemand isubsequently, iand iif imade iit iwould ibe isuperfluous. iemptor. iIn iAudh iBehari
i Singh iv. iGejadhar34the iSupreme iCourt iobserved ithat:

“The icorrect ilegal iposition iseems ito ibe ithat ithe ilaw iof ipre-emption iimposes ia ilimitation ior
i disability iupon ithe iownership iof ia iproperty ito ithe iextent ithat iit irestricts ithe iowner’s iunfettered
i right iof isale iand icompels ihim ito isell ithe iproperty ito ithe ico-sharer ior ineighbour ias ithe icase imay
i be”. i

When idoes ithe iright iarise? iIntroduction.—the iright iof ipre-emption iarises ionly iin icase iof isale
i and ionly iwhen isuch isale iis icomplete. iIt idoes inot iarise iin icases iof itransfer iof iimmovable
i property iwithout iconsideration, isuch ias iby iway iof igift. iBut ithe itransfer iof iproperty iin ilieu iof
i mahr iis itreated ias ione ifor iconsideration iand ihence isubject ito ipre-emption. i
So iwe itake ithe itwo iseparately, ias ifollows: i—

1. iIt iarises iin icases iof isale. i

2. iIt iarises iwhen ithe isale iis icomplete. i

(1) iRight iarises ionly iin icase iof isale.—The iright iof iclaiming ipre-emption iarises ionly iwhen ithe
i property iwhich iis ithe isubject iof ipre-emption ihas ibeen isubjected ito ia ivalid isale. iAn iintention ito
i sell ican inever ibe ia iground ifor iclaiming ithe iright. iSuch isale imust ibe ibona ifide, iSale ialso
i includes iexchange. iHowever, iit idoes inot iinclude igift, iSadaqa iwaqf, iinheritance, ibequest iof ia
i lease iin iperpetuity, ii.e., iin ithese icases ia iright icannot ibe iclaimed. i

(2) iRight iarises ionly iwhen isale iis icomplete.35—the iright iof imaking ia iclaim iof ipre-emption
i arises iwhen ithe isale iis icomplete. iNow ithe iquestion iarises ias ito iwhen ithe isale iis ito ibe
i considered ias icomplete. iAccording ito ithe iMuslim iLaw, ia isale iis icomplete iwhen ithe iprice iis
i paid iby ithe ipurchaser ito ithe ivendor iand ipossession iof ithe iproperty iis idelivered iby ithe ivendor
i to ithe ipurchaser. iThe iexecution iof ian iinstrument iof isale iis inot inecessary ibut, iaccording ito ithe

34
i A.I.R. i1954 iSC i417.

35
Munnilal iv. iBishawanath, iA.I.R. i1968 iSC i450. i
i Transfer iof iProperty iAct, i1882, iSection i54, ia isale iof iproperty iof ithe ivalue iof iRs. i100 iand
i upwards iis inot icomplete iunless imade iby ia iregistered iinstrument. iFormerly, ithere iwas
i controversy ion ithe ipoint iwhen ia isale iwould ibe iregarded ias icomplete. iThe iview iof ithe
i Allahabad iHigh iCourt iwas ithat iif ia icomplete isale ieffected iunder iMuslim iLaw ias iwhere ithe
i price iis ipaid iand ipossession iis idelivered, ithe iright iof ipre-emption iwill iarise, ithough ithe isale
i may inot ibe icomplete iunder ithe iTransfer iof iProperty iAct. iOn ithe iother ihand, ithe iview iof
i Calcutta iand iPatna iHigh iCourts iwas ithat ithe iright iof ipre-emption idoes inot iarise iuntil iafter
i registration ias irequired iby ithe iTransfer iof iProperty iAct. i

The iabove idifferences iof iopinion ion ithis ipoint iwere iresolved iby ithe iSupreme iCourt iin
i Radhakishan iLaxminarain iv.Shridhar,36In ithis icase ithe iCourt iheld ithat ithe itransfer iof
i property, iwhere ithe iTransfer iof iProperty iAct iapplies, ihas ito ibe iunder ithe iprovisions iof ithat
i Act ionly iand iMohammedan iLaw ior iany iother iprovisional ilaw iof itransfer iof iproperty icannot
i override ithe istatute. iTherefore, iunless ithe ititle ihas ipassed iin iaccordance iwith ithe iAct, ino iright
i to ienforce ipre-emption iarises. i
The iextent iof icontinuation iof ithe igrounds iof ipre-emption. iThe iground iof ipre-emption iarises
i when ithe isale iis icomplete ibut iit icontinues, inot ionly iup ito ithe idate iof isuit ifor ipre-emption, ibut
i till ithe idecree iis ipassed. iThus, iif ia iplaintiff, iwho iclaims ipre-emption ias ian iowner iof ithe
i contiguous iproperty, isells ihis iproperty ito ianother iperson iafter ithe iinstitution iof ithe isuit i(but
i before ithe idecree iis ipassed), ihe iwill inot ibe ientitled ito ia idecree ibecause ihe iceases ito iown ithe
i property iwhich igave ihim iground ito iclaim ipre-emption. iBut iit iis inot inecessary ithat ithe iright
i should ibe isubsisting itill ithe idate iof iexecution iof idecree ior itill ithe idate iof ithe idecree iof ithe
i Appellate iCourt. i
When iright idoes inot iarise i?—The iright iof ipre-emption idoes inot iarise iout iof i:— i

1.Gifts, i

2.Sadaqa, i

3.Waqf, i

4.Inheritance, i

5.Bequest,and i

6.Lease, ieven ithough iin iperpetuity. i

7. iMortgage, ieven ithough iit imay ibe iby iway iof iconditional isale.(But ithe iright iwill iaccrue iwhen
i the imortgage iis iforeclosed). i
36
A.I.R. i1960 i iSC1368.
8. iConditional isale. i

7. RIGHT I IOF I PRE-EMPTION WHEN

I LOST :- iThe iright iof ipre-emption imay ibe ilost iin ithe
I I

i following icases: i

1. iBy iacquiescence ior iestoppel ior iwaiver ior iforfeiture: iWhen ithe ipre-emptor ifails ito iobserve
i necessary iformalities iprescribed, ii.e., imaking ithree idemands. iThere imay ibe iother
i circumstances ialso ifrom iwhich iacquiescence ion ithe ipart iof ipre-emptor imay ibe iobserved: i
(i) iA ipre-emptor imay iwaive ihis iright iby iacquiescence, ii.e., iby inot iasserting ihis iclaim. iUpon
i the isale iof ithe ipre-empted iproperty, ia ipre-emptor imay ieither iassert ihis iright iby imaking
i demands ior imay iwillingly iforego ihis iclaim iby inot imaking iany idemand.2 i

(ii) iThe iright iof ipre-empt iis ilost iwhen ithe ipre-emptor ienters iinto ia icompromise iwith ithe
i vendee, i not i to i claim i the i right i of i pre-emption. i

(iii) iThe iright iis ilost iwhen ithe ipre-emptor ipermits ia isale ito ibe imade ito ianother iperson. i

(iv) iWhen ithe ipre-emptor iacts ias iagent iof ithe ivendor iin itransaction ithen ialso ithe iright iis ilost. i
(v) iThe iright ito ipre-empt iis ilost iwhen ithe ipre-emptor ibecomes ia isurety ifor ipayment iof ithe
i consideration. i

2. iBy ideath iof ithe ipre-emptor:When ithe ipre-emptor idies iafter imaking ithe itwo idemands ibut
i before ithe ifiling iof ithe isuit7, ii.e., ithird idemand ithen ialso ithe iright iof ire-emption iis ilost, ihis
i legal irepresentatives ihave ino iright ito ifile ithe isuit. iHowever, iunder ithe iShia iand iShafi ilaw, iif ia
i pre-emptor idies iduring ipendency iof ithe isuit, ithe iright iis inot ilost. iBut inow ithe imatter iis
i governed iby ithe iIndian iSuccession iAct iand ithe isuit imay ibe icontinued iby ithe ilegal iheirs iof ithe
i pre-emptors. iThe iAct iapplies ito iall isects iof iMuslims iin iIndia. iIf ithe ipre-emptor idies ileaving ia
i Will ithe isuit imay ibe icontinued iby ihis iexecutor iand iif ithe iexecutor idies iintestate ithe isuit imay
i be icontinued iby ihis iheirs.
3. iBy imis-joinder iof iplaintiffs:When ithe ipre-emptor ijoins ihimself ias ia ico-plaintiff iwith ia
i person iwho iis inot ientitled ito iclaim ithe iright iof ipre-emption ithen ialso ithe iright ito ipre-empt iis
i lost. iBut iif ihe ijoins iwith ihimself ias ico-plaintiff ia iperson iwho icould ihave ifiled ia isuit ifor ipre-
emption, ibut ifor ithe ireason ithat ihe idid inot imake ithe itwo idemands ithe iright ito ipre-empt iwill inot
i be ilost.37

37
i Dwarka iSingh iv. iSheo iShankar iSingh, iA.I.R. i1927 iAll i168. i
4. iBy irelease:The ipre-emptor iwould ilose ihis iright iif ithere iis ia irelease ifor iconsideration ito ibe
i paid ito ithe ipre-emptor.38 iIn iother iwords iwhen ithe ipre-emptor ireleases ithe iproperty ifor
i consideration iof isomething ito ibe ipaid ito ihim iby ithe iseller, ithen ialso ithe iright ito ipre-empt iis
i lost. iBut ithe iright iof ipre-emptor iwould inot ibe ilost iif ibefore ithe isale iwas icomplete, ihe iwas
i offered ithe iproperty iand ihe irefused ito ipurchase. iHis iright iwould ibe ilost iwhere, ithough ithe ipre-
emptor ihad iinformation iof isale ibut idid inot ioffer ito ibuy iit.

5. iLoss iof iright ibefore ifinal idecree:If ithe ipre-emptor iloses ihis iright ibefore ithe ifinal idecree iis
i passed, ihe iwould ilose ihis iright. iTherefore, ihis iright imust iexist itill ithe idate iwhen ifinal idecree iis
i passed iby itrial icourt. i

6. iBy istatutory idisability:The iright iof ipre-emption imay ibe iforfeited iif ithere iis iany istatutory
i disability ion ithe ipart iof ipre-emptor ito irepurchase ithe ipre-empted iproperty. iIn isuch ia
i circumstance ia ipre-emptor iwho imay iotherwise ibe icompetent ito ienforce ithe iright, iis iunable ito
i claim ithe iright ibecause iof istatutory idisability. i

8. EFFECT OF PRE-EMPTION (SHUFA):-

I I I I I

1. iRight iof ipre-emptor iafter iPre-emption:Thepre-emptor imay itake ithe ipossession iof ithe
i property iwhich iis ithe isubject-matter iof ipre-emption, ieither iby imutual iconsent ior iby ipaying ithe
i purchase imoney ito ithe ivendee, iafter ia idecree iis ipassed iin ifavour iof ihim iby ithe icourt. iAfter
i taking ipossession iof ithe iproperty iin ithe iabove imanner, ihe iis isubstituted ifor ithe ivendee. iNow
i the ioriginal ipurchaser ibecomes ithe iseller iand ipre-emptor ibecomes ithe ibuyer. i

2. iRight iof ivendee iafter iPre-emption:With ithe ireference iof iproperty ito ithe ipre-emptor, ithe
i rights iof ithe ivendee ialso iemerge. iThe ivendee iis ientitled ito imesne iprofits isuch ias irents iand
i profits, iof ithe iproperty ibetween ithe idate iof ithe ifirst isale iand ithe idate iof itransfer iof ithe ipre-
emptor. iThe idate iof itransfer iis inot ithe idate iof idecree ibut ithe idate iwhen ithe ipre-emptor ipays ithe
i purchase imoney. iAnd ithe ipre-emptor ibecomes ientitled ito imesne iprofit ifrom ithe idate ion iwhich
i he ipays ithe ipurchase iprice iafter ithe idecree iin ifavour iof ihim iis ipassed. iFor iexample, iif ifirst isale
i of iproperty iis imade ito iAnon i1st iJanuary, i1993 ibut ithe ipre-emptor ipays ithe ipurchaser imoney
i on i1st iSeptember, i1993. iA idecree iin ifavour iof ithe ipre-emptor, iB iis ipassed ion i1st iAugust,
i 1993. iThen ithe ivendee iA iis ientitled ito imesne iprofit iof ithe iproperty ifrom ithe iperiod iof i31st
i January, i1993 ito i31st iAugust, i1993 ieven ithough ithe idecree iin ifavour iof ithe ipre-emptor, iB iis

38
Sitaram iDeshmukh iv. iJiaul iHasan, iA.I.R. i1923 iPC i41. i
 i passed ion i1st iAugust, i1993. iFrom i1st iSeptember, i1993 ionwards iB, ithe ipre-emptor ibecomes
i entitled ito imesne iprofit. i

3.Deterioration iof iproperty: iWhen ithe iproperty ibecomes ideteriorated iafter ithe ifirst isale, ithen
i the ipre-emptor iwhen ipays ithe iwhole ipurchase imoney iwill ibe ientitled ito ia iproportionate
i reduction i in i price i only i if i the i following i circumstances i occur: i

(a) iA iproportionate ireduction iin iprice iwill ibe imade ionly iif ithe ideterioration iis idue ito imade
i only iif ithe ideterioration iis ioccurred idue ieither iby ivendee ior ia istranger. i

(b) iA iproportionate ireduction iin iprice iwill ibe imade iif ideterioration ihas ioccurred idue ito isome
i natural icalamity. iFor iexample, iif ia iportion iof ithe iland iis idestroyed iby iany inatural icause isuch
i as iflood, iearthquake, ietc., ithen ia iproportionate ireduction iin iprice iwill ibe imade.’ i

4. iReduction iin iprice iby ithe ivendee: iThe ivendor iand ithe ivendee imay ichange ithe iprice. iIf ithe
i vendor ihas imade iany ireduction iin ithe iprice, ithen ithe ipre-emptor iis ientitled ito isuch ireduction.
i But iif ithe iwhole iprice iis iremitted iby ithe ivendor, ithe ivendee iis ientitled ito ithe iprofits. i

5. iIncrease iin iprice: iIf iany iincrease iin ithe iprice iis imade, ithe ipre-emptor iwould inot ibe ibound
i to ipay ithe iincreased iamount. iBut iunder ithe iShia ilaw, ithe ipre-emptor iis ibound ito itake ithe
i property iat ithe icontract iprice, iirrespective iof iany iincrease ior ireduction imade iby ithe ivendor
i and ithe ivendee.’ i

6. iEffect ion ipre-emption iby idisposition ior ideath: iThe iright iof ipre-emption icannot ibe idefeated
i by iany idisposition ior iproperty imade iby ithe ivendee. iThe iright ican ialso inot ibe idefeated iby ithe
i death iof ithe ivendee. i

7. iNo itransference iof ithe idecree iof ipre-emption:The idecree iof ipre-emption iobtained iby ithe
i pre-emptor icannot ibe itransferred iby ihim. iOn isuch itransference, ithe itransferee iis inot ientitled ito
i take ipossession iof ithe ipre-emptor’s iproperty.

9. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SUNNI AND SHIA LAWS. :-

II I I I I I I I

1. As ito iwho ican iclaim iit.—Under ithe iSunni iLaw, ia ico-sharer ia iparticipator iin ithe
i appendages iand iowners iof iadjoining ilands, iare ientitled ito iclaim ipre-emption, iwhereas iunder
i the iShia iLaw, ia ico-sharer ialone iis ientitled ito ipre-emption, iand ithat itoo iif ithe inumber iof ico-
sharers idoes inot iexceed itwo. i
2. As ito iright ito isue.—Under iSunni iLaw iif ithe ipre-emptor idies ibefore iobtaining ia idecree
i in ia isuit ifor ipre-emption ithe iright ito isue iis iextinguished iwhereas iunder iShia iLaw, ithe iright ito
i sue iis inot iextinguished iand ithe isuit imay ibe icontinued iby ithe ipre-emptor’s iheirs. iBut inow,
i Indian iSuccession iAct iapplies iand iin isuch ia icase ithe iright ito isue iis inot iextinguished
i irrespective iof ithe ifact iwhether ithe ipre-emptor iis iSunni ior iShia. i

3. As ito iabatement iof iprice.—Under ithe iSunni iLaw, iif iafter ithe icompletion iof ithe isale,
i the ivendor imakes ian iabatement iof ithe iprice, ithe ipre-emptor ican iclaim ithe ibenefit iof ithe
i abatement. iUnder ithe iShia iLaw, iin isuch ia icase, ithe ipre-emptor icannot iclaim ithe ibenefit iof ithe
i abatement iof ithe iprice. i
4. i As ito ithe inumber iof idemands.—Under ithe iSunni iLaw, ithe italab-i-mowiisibat iand
i the italab-i-islthadare ithe itwo iconditions iprecedent ito ithe iexercise iof ithe iright iof ipre-emption.
i Under ithe iShia iLaw, ithe idistinction ibetween ithe itwo idemands iis inot irecognised; iall ithat iis
i necessary iis ithat ithe ipre-emptor ishould iuse ireasonable idiligence, iwithout iany iunnecessary
i delay ito imake ithe iassertion iof ihis iright iafter ireceiving ithe iinformation. i

CONCLUSION

In ithe iwords iof iMulla, i“The iright iof ishufa ior ipre-emption iis ia iright iwhich ithe iowner iof ian
i immovable iproperty ipossesses ito iacquire iby ipurchase ianother iimmovable iproperty iwhich ihas
i been isold ito ianother iperson”. iThe ifoundation iof ithe iright iof ipre-emption iis ithe ihuman idesire
i to iavoid ithe iinconvenience iand idisturbance iwhich iis ilikely ito ibe icaused iby ithe iintroduction iof
i a istranger iinto ithe iland. iThe iMuslim ilaw iof ipre-emption iis ito ibe ilooked iat iin ithe ilight iof ithe
i Muslim ilaw iof isuccession. iUnder iMuslim ilaw, ideath iof ia iperson iresults iin ithe idivision iof ihis
i property iinto ifractions. iIf ian iheir iis iallowed ito idispose iof ihis ishare iwithout ioffering iit ito iother
i co-heirs, ithen iit iis ilikely ito ilead ito ithe iintroduction iof istrangers iinto ia ipart iof ithe iestate iwith
i resultant idifficulties iand iinconveniences. iIn iview iof ithis, ithe ilaw iof ipre-emption iimposes ia
i limitation ior idisability iupon ithe iownership iof iproperty ito ithe iextent ithat iit irestricts ithe iowner’s
i unfettered iright iof itransfer iof iproperty iand icompels ihim ito isell iit ito ihis ico-heir ior ineighbour,
i as ithe icase imay ibe. iThe iperson, iwho iis ia ico-sharer iin ithe iproperty, ior iowes iproperty iin ithe
i vicinity, igets ian iadvantage icorresponding ito ithe iburden iwith iwhich ithe iowner iof ithe iproperty
i is isaddled, ieven ithough iit idoes inot iamount ito ian iactual iinterest iin ithe iproperty isold. iIt iis inow
i an iestablished iview ithat ithe iright iof ipre-emption iis inot ia imere iright ito ire-purchase; iit iis iakin ito
i legal iservitude irunning iwith ithe iland. iThe iright iexists iin ithe iowner iof ithe ipre-emption
i tenement ifor ithe itime ibeing iwhich ientitled ihim ito ihave ian ioffer iof isale imade ito ihim iwhenever
i the iowner iof ipre-emotional iproperty idesires ito isell iit.It iis ia iright iof isubstitution ientitling ithe
i pre-emptor, iby ireason iof ia ilegal iincident ito iwhich ithe isale iitself iwas isubject, ito istand iin ithe
i shoes iof ithe ivendee iin irespect iof iall ithe irights iand iobligations iarising ifrom ithe isale iunder
i which ihe ihas iderived ihis ititle.