partial pre-emption Chapter 3: American Federalism

1 – 10 of 275 (0.23 seconds)

Banta Singh Ganga Singh And Ors. vs Harbhajan Kaur And Ors. on 6 March, 1974

objection regarding the suit being bad for partial preemption was raised by the vendees-appellants in their written statement … taken was that the suit was bad for partial preemption. This plea was stated in preliminary objection
Punjab-Haryana High Court


– Cites 7
– Cited by 12

– Full Document

Jai Kishan vs Balbir Singh And Another on 19 March, 2009

suit cannot be said to

be bad for partial preemption when the total land sold

by Kitabo through registered … suit was held to be bad for

partial preemption for non-inclusion of Haveli in the

plaint. In Manbodh

Punjab-Haryana High Court


– Cites 2
– Cited by 0

– Full Document

Pala Ram vs Naurang Singh And Nauranga on 29 July, 1993

effect that the suit was bad for partial preemption. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, Pala Ram defendant preferred … allege that the suit is bad for partial preemption and the impugned sale was not pre-emptible
Punjab-Haryana High Court


– Cites 0
– Cited by 0

– Full Document

Khem Singh And Ors. vs Kapur Singh on 25 March, 1983

that the suit of the plaintiff was for partial preemption and that the suit land was partially agricultural land … that the suit of the plaintiff is for partial preemption and that the land shown being banjar and gairmumkin
Himachal Pradesh High Court


– Cites 2
– Cited by 0

– Full Document

Mt. Zainab Bibi vs Umar Hayat Khan And Ors. on 31 January, 1936

considers convenient to get. In that sense partial preemption cannot be allowed. On the other hand, it has been … essence embodies the principle of the prevention of partial preemption. The latter portion of it says:
No suit shall
Allahabad High Court


– Cites 11
– Cited by 5

– Full Document

Asa Ram vs B. Asa Ram And Anr. on 5 March, 1945

emption, the claim was bad for partial preemption, in as much as the plaintiff’s legal position … view, was not vitiated by the principle of partial preemption. In the result, he dismissed the suit on appeal
Allahabad High Court


– Cites 9
– Cited by 1

– Full Document

Vijay Pal vs Rohtash Singh on 18 January, 2006

land. Another objection was raised with regard to partial preemption.

6. The learned trial Court, on the basis … suit filed by the plaintiff was bad for partial preemption and that he had no preferential right to purchase

Punjab-Haryana High Court


– Cites 2
– Cited by 1

– Full Document

Afzal Husain vs Huran Bibi And Ors. on 22 February, 1929

dismissed on account of the defect of partial preemption. It is this plea which found favour with the learned … dismissed on appeal on the mere ground of partial preemption.

6. We think that before the appellate Court either

Allahabad High Court


– Cites 0
– Cited by 1

– Full Document

Ganga Singh Wasawa Singh vs Narinjan Singh Ganga Singh on 19 May, 1971

barred as a pre-emptor cannot sue for partial preemption–the rule being that in preemption there … property for a particular purpose and by permitting partial preemption on payment of the whole consideration he is left
Punjab-Haryana High Court


– Cites 0
– Cited by 1

– Full Document

Teekam Ram vs Mangtu And Ors. on 17 June, 1970

ground that he was suing for partial preemption.

18. After referring to the above cases and a few others … will be non-suited on account of partial preemption. Obviously a tenant holding tenancy over such a small area

Delhi High Court


– Cites 12
– Cited by 0

– Full Document

Create Alert
Get alerts for new judgments matching this query.

RSS feed –

1  


2


3


4


5


6


7


8


9


10

Next