DATE: 21/11/2025
COURT: High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
BENCH: Justice Sanjay Dhar
FACTS:
The dispute in the present case centres
around a property comprising a kacha house and vacant land situated in Poonch
town. The respondent-plaintiff claimed a right of prior purchase over the
disputed property, asserting that she and the predecessor-in-interest of the
proforma respondents had jointly purchased it in 1976 for Rs.11,000. According to her, the parties never formally partitioned the property,
although one room each remained in their possession. After the death of the
original co-owner, Roop Chand, his share devolved upon Isher Dass, the
predecessor of the proforma respondents. When the plaintiff learned that Isher
Dass was negotiating the sale of his share to the appellant, she issued a legal
notice objecting to the proposed sale. Despite this, he executed a sale deed in
favour of the appellant on 26.05.1987 for Rs.40,000, although the plaintiff alleged that the actual sale consideration was Rs.32,000. Based on
these assertions, she approached the court claiming a right of pre-emption on
the grounds of co-ownership, contiguity, access rights, and the existence of a
common structure.
The defendants, including the appellant
purchaser and the original co-owner, contested the claim. They contended that
the property had already been partitioned, and that each party was in exclusive
possession of clearly demarcated portions. They further stated that the
plaintiff herself had earlier filed a suit for injunction wherein she admitted
partition, though that suit was dismissed for non-prosecution. The defendants
denied the existence of any common staircase or access, contesting the basis
for pre-emption. After evaluating evidence led by both sides, the trial court
decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff, recognising her right of prior
purchase under the relevant provisions of the J&K Right of Prior Purchase
Act, subject to payment of Rs.40,000 as the purchase
consideration.
ISSUES:
The central issue in this case was whether
the plaintiff had waived her statutory right of pre-emption by her conduct,
particularly by first filing a suit for injunction against the defendants
without claiming pre-emption despite having knowledge of the impugned sale
deed. The additional question was whether, in light of this conduct and the
long lapse of time since the defendant-appellant purchased and altered the
property, the decree of pre-emption granted by the trial court could be
sustained.
JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:
The appellate court allowed the appeal,
setting aside the trial court’s decree granting possession to the plaintiff on
the basis of pre-emption. It held that the plaintiff had effectively waived her
right of pre-emption through her conduct, particularly by abandoning her
earlier injunction suit without asserting such a right, despite being aware of
the sale. It further directed that the amount deposited by the plaintiff
towards purchase consideration be refunded to her.
The court reasoned that the right
of pre-emption is considered a weak right in law and can be defeated by lawful
means or even waived through conduct. The record showed that when the plaintiff
filed the earlier injunction suit shortly after the sale, she was already aware
of the transfer but did not invoke her pre-emption claim. Instead, her
objections were limited only to preventing alleged encroachment. Her silence
and later abandonment of that suit reasonably led the appellant to believe that
her pre-emption claim would not be pursued, and on that basis, he even
demolished and modified the portion of the property he had purchased. This
conduct, the court held, amounted to an implied waiver, giving rise to estoppel
against the plaintiff.
Further, the appellate court
found that enforcing a pre-emption decree after nearly 38 years would be
grossly inequitable. The defendant had been in continuous occupation of the
property for decades, and asking him to vacate in exchange for a nominal amount
deposited long ago would cause undue hardship. Since the right of pre-emption
restricts an owner’s freedom to deal with property and has now been
legislatively abolished in J&K, the court emphasized a strong public
interest in discouraging revival of stale claims. The trial court had ignored
these aspects and proceeded solely on the technical entitlement under the
statute, thereby committing a serious error. The appellate court therefore set
aside its decree.
ANALYSIS:
The appellate court’s decision highlights
the interplay between statutory rights and equitable conduct-based limitations.
Although the plaintiff initially had a statutory right of pre-emption arising
from co-ownership and structural proximity, the court emphasized that such
right is inherently weak and must be exercised promptly and unequivocally. The
plaintiff’s conduct, filing an injunction suit soon after the sale deed,
admitting knowledge of the sale, yet remaining silent on pre-emption, reflected
an implied abandonment of the right. The defendant justifiably relied on this
conduct, altered the property, and remained in uninterrupted possession for
decades. The doctrine of estoppel was applied to prevent the plaintiff from
acting inconsistently with her earlier behaviour. This case reinforces that
statutory rights are not exercised in isolation but operate within equitable
boundaries, particularly when the other party has materially altered their
position in reliance on such conduct.
Further, the court adopted a pragmatic
rather than merely formalistic approach. It underscored that enforcing
pre-emption after nearly four decades would not only cause inequitable
consequences but also run contrary to contemporary legal policy, especially
since pre-emption rights have now been abolished by statute in Jammu &
Kashmir. The plaintiff was attempting to resurrect a claim that, although
technically valid when made, had been rendered inequitable by time, conduct,
and subsequent legislative change. The court emphasized that rights which
operate as restrictions on free alienation of property should not be revived
through litigation when long periods have elapsed and the property has
significantly changed in character. Therefore, the decision is rooted not only
in the technical principle of waiver but also in broader considerations of
fairness, public policy, and legal certainty.
info@adhwaitha.com