Rambaran Prosad Vs Ram Mohit Hazra and Ors, AIR1967 SC 744

learned Counsel put forward the argument that the covenant for pre-emption was merely a personal covenant between the contracting parties and was not binding against successors-in-interest or the assignees of the original parties to the contract. We are unable to accept this submission as correct. It is true that the pre-emption clause does not expressly state that it is binding upon the assignees or successors-in-interest, but, having regard to the context and the circumstances in which the award was made, it is manifest that the pre-emption clause must be construed as binding upon the assignees or successors-in-interest of the original contracting parties.

Bishan Singh and others v. Khazan Singh and another, AIR 1958 SC 838, The apex Court, while dealing with a pre-emption suit under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act (Head Note-B), held thus: "It is settled law in Punjab that the rule of lis pendens is as much applicable to a suit to enforce the right of pre-emption as to any other suit. But, the rule applies only to a transfer pendente lite and it cannot affect pre-existing rights. If the sale is a transfer in recognition of a pre- existing subsisting right, it would not be affected by the doctrine as the said transfer does not create new right pendente lite; but if the pre-existing right became unenforceable by reason of the fact of limitation or otherwise, the transfer though ostensibly made in recognition of such a right in fact created only a new right pendente lite."