SURESH CHAND & Anr. v. SURESH CHANDER (D) THR LRS & Ors.

1.5 It was submitted that the comma appearing in s. 5(1)(c) should be read as “or” and the Section must be interpreted disjunctive; that s. 5(1)(c) should be read as “the right of pre- emption shall not accrue... on a transfer to any of the persons mentioned in s. 6” or “the right of pre-emption shall not accrue... to any person who has an equal or inferior right of pre-emption”; that the plaintiff-BP would not be covered by the first part as the first defendant-DC would be covered by s. 6(1)(ii) and the second part would not apply to the plaintiff as he only has an inferior right of pre-emption against the defendant; that the plaintiff cannot claim any right of pre-emption where a transfer is affected by a person who is covered by any of the clauses of Section 6. However, the disjunctive interpretation of Section 5(1)(c) as suggested cannot be countenanced in view of the plain text of the provision. Reading the provision in a manner as suggested would amount to an exercise of legislative re-drafting. This is impermissible. [Para 17][901 B-F]

1.6 The two segments of s.5(1)(c) are that the first segment contains the words “on a transfer to any of the persons mentioned in s. 6; and the second segment comprises of the words “to any person who has an equal or inferior right of pre-emption”. Both segments are separated by a comma and refer to two separate sets of persons. In the first segment the expression “any of the persons” refers to the vendee. In the second segment, the expression “any person” refers to the claimant. In the instant case, the plaintiff-BP had a superior right of pre-emption by virtue of the provisions of Section 6(3) since he was the brother of the A B C D E F G H 894 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 3 S.C.R. A B C D E F G H second defendant. DC has an inferior right of pre-emption as compared to BP. Hence his claim cannot prevail over the superior right of pre-emption of BP. The concurrent findings of the trial judge, first appellate court and in second appeal, have proceeded on a correct interpretation of the provisions. [Paras 18, 19] [901 F-H; 902 A-C]