At the Jammu wing of the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, a long-pending property dispute finally reached closure as Justice Sanjay Dhar delivered a detailed judgment that cut through nearly four decades of litigation twists. The court held that the plaintiff, Durga Devi, had effectively given up her statutory right of prior purchase by her own conduct-much earlier than she later claimed-ultimately reversing the lower court’s decree that once granted her possession of the disputed Poonch property.
Background
The matter stemmed from a seemingly simple co-ownership arrangement involving an old kachha house and adjoining land in Poonch town. Durga Devi and the predecessor of the other side, Isher Dass, had jointly bought this property in 1976. Years later, Dass sold his share to Iqbal Singh through a registered sale deed dated 26 May 1987.
Read also: Assam High Court Flags Gaps in Police Recruitment Policy for Transgender Applicants, Seeks Clarity
Durga Devi insisted she had the superior “right of prior purchase”-a form of pre-emption once recognised under the now-repealed J&K Right of Prior Purchase Act. She even sent a legal notice in 1986 expressing her interest. But in June 1987, shortly after learning about the sale, she filed only an injunction suit, not a pre-emption suit. Interestingly, in that suit she even admitted to a partition of the property, something she would later deny. That first suit was abandoned and dismissed for non-prosecution.
Only in May 1988, close to the one-year limitation deadline, did she file a fresh suit specifically claiming pre-emption. The trial court in 2001 granted her decree, holding that the property was a single unit and therefore she had a valid claim.
Read also: Supreme Court Flags Serious Concerns Over Police Conduct in Madhya Pradesh Case, Seeks Affidavits
Court’s Observations
Justice Dhar’s judgment goes deep into the doctrine of pre-emption, calling it a “very weak right”, quoting earlier Supreme Court rulings that courts often view such claims with “a certain amount of distaste” because they interfere with an owner’s freedom to choose a buyer.
What tipped the balance was the plaintiff’s earlier conduct. The judge pointed out several moments where her actions contradicted her later legal position:
- She issued a notice expressing interest but then filed a suit only for injunction, not pre-emption.
- She admitted the property had been partitioned in that earlier suit.
- She let the injunction suit die without pursuing her supposed right.
- She remained silent while the buyer demolished part of the structure.
These, the court felt, were not small omissions but clear actions that would “allow the appellant to believe she had waived her right.” As the judge noted, “This conduct of the plaintiff allowed the appellant to believe that she had waived her right of pre-emption.”
Read also: Supreme Court Clarifies Key Rules on Cheque Dishonour Jurisdiction After 2015 NI Act
Another factor that weighed heavily: 38 years had passed since the sale. The judge remarked that removing a buyer now, after he had remained in possession for nearly four decades, and that too for a price fixed in 1987 (₹40,000), would be “grossly inequitable.”
The court also acknowledged the changed legal landscape. After the 2019 J&K Reorganisation Act, the Right of Prior Purchase Act itself stands repealed-signalling a shift away from such restrictive rights.
Decision
In the end, the High Court allowed Iqbal Singh’s appeal, setting aside the 2001 decree of the trial court. The refund of the ₹40,000 amount deposited by the plaintiff was ordered, and the long-running litigation was formally brought to an end. The judgment concluded by directing that the trial court records be returned.
Case Title: Iqbal Singh vs. Durga Devi & Others
Case No.: CFA No. 19/2001
Case Type: Civil First Appeal (Right of Prior Purchase / Pre-emption)
Decision Date: 21 November 2025
