P&H: Sets Aside Pre‑Emption Decrees, Calls Co‑Sharer Decree “Calculated Device”.

Revenue entries — Decree never reflected in revenue record - Circumstance that decree was never reflected in revenue record reinforces the inference of collusion, as a genuine settlement would ordinarily be sanctioned and incorporated in Jamabandi. (Para 39)

Pre-emption — Person who acquires status of co‑sharer through a collusive arrangement cannot invoke equitable jurisdiction relating to pre-emption so as to unsettle a prior lawful transaction. (Para 47)

Punjab Pre-emption Act, Ss.19, 20, 21 - Pre-emption —  Co-sharer u/s 19 of the Act becomes entitled to exercise the right of pre-emption only where intended sale has taken place without notice to such co-sharer - Conversely, where notice of intended sale has been duly given,...

Pre-emption —  Right of pre‑emption is a very weak right, being only a right of substitution and can be defeated by all legitimate methods Collusive foundation cannot sustain its enforcement. (Para 55)

Collusive judgment — Effect upon third parties — When a third party seeks protection against effect of a collusive judgment, such party is entitled to contend that decree should be treated as void insofar as his rights are concerned, even though it may remain binding inter...

Punjab Pre-emption Act, Ss.19, 20, 21 —  Pre-emption — Collusive decree creating co-sharership after a prior agreement to sell — Decree suffered by a close relative of vendors in favour of his son and daughter-in-law was a calculated device engineered after the agreement to sell...

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, S.12 — Contempt of Court - Scope of contempt jurisdiction vis‑à‑vis interim orders — Contempt jurisdiction is essentially discretionary and intended to uphold authority of Court rather than adjudicate disputed civil rights - Once the substantive pre‑emption claims fail, no enforceable...