gets the land by arrangement.

If a pre-emptor succeeds in having the
property transferred to himself from the purchaser by private arrangements
instead of bringing a suit, it would not be right to say that he has not
exercised his right of pre-emption.

Mehr Baksh
Vs. Mala Dad (1951) 3 DLR 224.

In the absence of a proof that physical
possession of a property was taken by the vendee on the date of the execution
of the deed, the period of one year under Article 10 of the Limitation Act,
within which the pre—emptor is entitled to exercise his right of pre—emption
must be taken to have commenced from the date on which the deed in favour of
the purchaser was registered.   Ibid.



A covenant for pre-emption or a covenant
giving an option of repurchase, if entered into after the coming into force of
the Transfer of Property Act, does not create any interest in the land itself
and the covenant is merely a personal covenant, binding the parties to the
contract, and such covenants can only be enforced by a Suit for specific
performances under section 27 of the Specific Relief Act. Such covenant could
be enforced against a transferee only if such transfer was gratuitous transfer
with notice.

Chandra Vs. Parameswar Roy, (1957) 9DLR 476.


Partial pre-emption—Co-sharers pre-empting of land and claiming
rest in their own right—Suit incompetent. 1957(1)
PLR WP (311.)