This case involves a dispute over the right of first refusal to purchase a piece of land between Pitambar Bhusal and Krishna Raj Upadhyaya. Krishna Raj claims he was promised the land by the previous owners but Pitambar registered the land in his own name for a higher fraudulent price before Krishna could exercise his right. The lower courts disagreed on whether Krishna had to deposit the purchase amount known to him to validly claim pre-emption given his allegation of fraud. The Full Bench initially ruled in Krishna's favor but upon review, the majority held that the right must be claimed by depositing the known amount, making the regional court's decision valid.

1. Pitambar Bhusal
v
Krishna Raj Upadhyaya
Presenter
Bivek Chaudhary
2nd Semester, Roll no. 24
Nepal Law Campus
NKP 2038

2. Short Details
Decision No. 1490
NKP 2038
VOL. 8
Case: pre-emption
A pre-emption case can occur when a party seeks to exercise their right of
first refusal to purchase property before another party can purchase it.

3. Full bench
Hon. Judge Mr. Basudev Sharma
Hon. Judge Mr. Dhanendra Bahadur Singh
Hon. Judge Mr. Heramraj
Hon. Judge Mr. Surendra Prasad Singh
Hon. Judge Mr. Babar Prasad Singh
Hon. Judge Mr. Trilok Pratap Rana
Hon. Judge Mr. Gajendra Keshari Bastola
Hon. Judge Mr. Jogendra Prasad Shiwastab
Hon. Judge Mr. Hargovinda Singh Pradhan

4. Facts of the case
 Hum Kumari and KhemKumari, who were the sister-in-
law of Krishna Raj Upadhyaya had promised to give the
land of 6 Bigha 3Kattha of cost Rs. 21000 to him,
 But to deprive him from his right of pre-emption,
Pitambar Bhusal registered the land in his name in
Kapilvastu Land Revenue Office in 2029/04/ in Rs.
41100 ( this amount was claimed to be a fraudulent
amount, which is Rs. 20100 than real price of land)
 When Kishna Raj knew it, he filed a petition to pre-empt
the land in Rs.21000

5. Respondent’s claim
Since Krishna Raj has not deposited required amount to
claim his right of pre-emption as per the Chapter
Registration no. 35, his petition should be quashed.
Chapter-21 On Registration of Deeds, no.35 reads as
follows:
The person entitled to redemption may deposit the amount
of property with the office where the deed was registered or
with the registration office where the deed was registered or
with the registration office in that territory where the
creditor is residing and file an application for the same

6. Decision of District Court
Krishna Raj can redeem the land after the case of
fraudulent is decided and the real amount is known in
accordance with the no. 16 of Chapter on General
Transactions.

7. Decision of Western Regional Court
• The decision quashed the claim of Krishna Raj
because he has not deposited the amount known to
him at the time of filing petition for the redemption.
Since, Krishna Raj did not deposited the
amount/price known to him, his claim cannot be
justified.

8. Decision of Supreme Court Division
Bench
Hon. Judge Mr. Bashudev Sharma
As per the petition of Krishna Raj Upadhyaya, it is clear that he knows
the amount /price, since his claim in that the real amount is Rs.21000 and the
fraudulent amount is Rs.41100 and he has not deposited the known amount to
him so, his claim cannot be justified. So, the decision of Western Regional
Court is Valid.
Hon. Judge Mr. Ishworiraj Mishra
In the case of Amber Bahadur v. Chehar Singh, Supreme Court has
established that if there is no agreement in the amount/price and the case of
fraudulent has been filed , the deposit should be done within 35 days of
amount being settled, so the same should happen in this case and the decision
of Western Regional Court is not correct.

9. Decision of Full Bench
In 2033/7/20/6, the court decided that 16 no. of the
chapter on General Transaction provides that if there is
no agreement in the amount/price a person who wants
to redeem can deposit the amount after the amount has
been agreed, so Krishna Raj Upadhyaya can redeem the
land.

10. Review of the Decision of Full
Bench
Majority Judgment (6);
No. 16 of general transaction has provided the two conditions:
1. If the amount/price is known it should be deposited. And a
person cannot seek for an exemption from depositing by raising the
dispute of fraudulent.
2. If the amount is unknown the deposit should be done within
35 days after it is settled.
No. 16 cannot be constructed as that the amount should not be
deposited in case of fraudulent even if it is known.
Since Krishna Raj knew the amount and he did not deposit the
amount, the decision of the Western Regional Court is valid.

11. THANK YOU