Shufa, or pre-emption, under Muslim Law is a legal right allowing a co-owner, neighbor, or partner to claim priority in purchasing property being sold. Rooted in Islamic principles, it ensures social harmony and prevents intrusion by outsiders into close-knit ownership or neighborhood relations. 

The concept of Shufa (pre-emption) under Muslim Law is an ancient and deeply rooted legal principle that ensures social cohesion and fairness in the transfer of immovable property. It primarily provides a preferential right to certain individuals, such as co-owners, neighbours, or relatives, to purchase property before it is sold to an outsider. This doctrine reflects not only a legal mechanism but also a socio-cultural safeguard developed to preserve the harmony within closely-knit communities.

Historically, the law of Shufa was introduced during the Mughal rule in India and was later extended to other communities, including Hindus. Despite its wide influence, Muslims continued to be governed by their personal laws in matters of pre-emption, distinct from the general laws applicable to others. By the time the British arrived in the 1600s, the right of pre-emption had already been recognized through customary practices and Islamic legal principles.

Shufa is grounded in the idea of granting the “first opportunity to purchase” to someone who shares a close bond, either physical (like neighbouring land) or relational (like co-ownership or blood ties), with the property being transferred. This ensures that the introduction of an outsider does not disrupt the existing socio-economic equilibrium of a locality.

The significance and origin of this right were elaborated in the landmark case of Kunwar Digamber Singh vs. Kunwar Ahmad Sayeed Khan (1914), where Sir John Edge underscored its historical role in rural Indian society. The case illustrated how village communities upheld such rights either through customs, agreements, or formal legislation, primarily to prevent strangers from intruding upon shared or community-owned spaces.

Thus, the doctrine of Shufa represents not merely a legal entitlement but a tool of social preservation, rooted in centuries-old customs and religious traditions, continually adapted to meet the needs of evolving legal systems.

What is Shufa (Pre-emption)? 

Shufa, derived from the Arabic word ‘Shufaa’, meaning to “annex” or “join,” refers to a right of pre-emption in Islamic jurisprudence. It grants a specific class of individuals the legal entitlement to purchase immovable property in preference to a third party, once the property is put up for sale. This right is not absolute but conditional upon certain criteria being met, including the relationship between the pre-emptor and the property or its existing owner.

In Muslim Law, the doctrine is designed to ensure that existing relationships, whether familial, neighbourly, or co-ownership-based, are not disturbed by the intrusion of an outsider. This is especially relevant in societies where land and property often serve as the foundation for long-standing social and familial structures. The doctrine ensures the smooth continuity of such structures by giving existing stakeholders a legal priority.

Characteristics of Shufa:

• It is a right of substitution, not an independent right to purchase. The pre-emptor steps into the shoes of the purchaser by matching the price and terms.
• The doctrine primarily applies to immovable property such as land or buildings.
• The right must be claimed through a specific sequence of demands (Talab), failing which the right is lost.
• It is governed by personal law, and its application may differ across Islamic schools (e.g., Hanafi, Shafi’i).

The primary objective behind the right of pre-emption is preventive rather than compensatory. It seeks to prevent future disputes, particularly in rural or close-knit communities, where the introduction of a stranger may lead to friction, mistrust, or even conflict.

The protective role of Shufa is multi-faceted:

• Social Stability: By preserving the status quo among neighbours or co-owners.
• Economic Protection: Avoiding sudden changes in property dynamics that might affect adjacent landowners.
• Cultural Continuity: In societies with collective family living, it ensures that property remains within the kin or community.

This foundational idea was reflected in the case of Radhamohana v. Mohamad Ismail (AIR 1959 Ori 71), where the Orissa High Court ruled that the purpose of the pre-emption doctrine is not to enrich one party at the expense of another but to protect the social fabric of co-located living arrangements.

The court noted that “the essence of pre-emption lies in preventing inconvenience and maintaining harmony rather than conferring unjust enrichment upon the pre-emptor.”

Furthermore, courts in India have recognized that Shufa is not to be interpreted as a mere transactional tool. Rather, it holds significant social and moral weight in the Muslim community, especially in rural or semi-urban contexts, where the communal aspect of property ownership is deeply entrenched.

While the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, governs most property transactions in India, it does not provide an equivalent mechanism to the doctrine of Shufa. The right of pre-emption under Muslim Law, therefore, exists as a personal law exception, acknowledged and enforced by courts in specific contexts.

In Kunwar Digamber Singh vs. Kunwar Ahmad Sayeed Khan (1914), Sir John Edge discussed the historical roots of pre-emption in Indian Muslim society, noting that the doctrine emerged from village customs based on Mohammedan law. These customs evolved to protect community interests and prevent outsiders from disrupting the social structure of the village.

In Mohd. Rashid vs. Abdul Rashid (1955), the Allahabad High Court clarified that the right of pre-emption is not inheritable or transferable. It exists only so long as the individual who qualifies, such as a neighbour, can assert it.

In Indira Bai vs. Nandkishore (1991), the Supreme Court of India took a critical view of pre-emption, calling it a “feeble and weak right” when pitted against doctrines like estoppel. The Court held that a person cannot assert the right of pre-emption if their conduct earlier contradicted such a claim, as doing so would violate principles of fairness and justice.

Origins and Evolution of the Doctrine

The doctrine of Shufa (pre-emption) is deeply rooted in early Islamic jurisprudence and arose as a response to the practical and social needs of early Muslim communities. While it does not find direct mention in the Quran, its foundations lie in the Hadiths—the recorded sayings and practices of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), and were later elaborated by Islamic jurists (fuqaha). These scholars recognized the need to maintain social harmony and ensure fairness in property transactions, particularly in small, closely-knit communities.

The primary aim was to prevent disputes and preserve social cohesion by giving preference to existing stakeholders, such as neighbours, co-sharers, or adjacent landowners, when a piece of property changed hands. The doctrine allowed these individuals to step into the buyer’s shoes and purchase the property on the same terms.

Early Islamic Society (7th–8th Century CE)

In the nascent Islamic society, where communities were built on tribal and kinship ties, property transactions were highly sensitive. To avoid bringing strangers into the midst of tribal territories or shared property, the right of Shufa emerged organically. It served as a conflict-prevention tool, preserving familial or community-based ownership.

Prophetic Tradition (Hadith):

“The neighbor has the best right (of pre-emption) to his neighbor’s property.” (Sahih Bukhari)

Development under Classical Islamic Jurists (8th–12th Century CE)

Prominent Islamic schools of thought, especially the Hanafi, Maliki, and Shafi’i schools, systematically developed the rules governing Shufa. Among them, Imam Abu Hanifa and Imam Malik were instrumental in shaping the jurisprudence of pre-emption, though with differing emphases:

• Hanafi School: Strongly recognized Shufa as a right available to co-sharers and even to neighbours under certain conditions.
• Maliki School: More restrictive, confining the right mostly to co-owners of indivisible property.

The codification by these scholars turned Shufa into a formal doctrine governed by clear legal principles.

Integration into Indian Muslim Law (Medieval to Modern Period)

As Islam spread to the Indian subcontinent, the doctrine of Shufa became embedded in Anglo-Mohammedan Law during the Mughal and later British periods. Courts in British India recognized and enforced this right under the umbrella of personal laws applicable to Muslims.

In Gobind Dayal v. Inayatullah (1885 ILR 7 All 775), the Privy Council acknowledged that pre-emption was a customary right under Muslim Law and held that it could be enforced, provided the necessary formalities were followed.

During colonial rule, personal laws were respected under the principle of legal pluralism, and Shufa became a well-established part of the property law applicable to Muslims.

Post-Independence India

After 1947, the doctrine continued to be recognized in Indian courts under Muslim Personal Law, though it faced challenges under constitutional principles like equality and the right to property. The judiciary began scrutinizing its compatibility with Article 14 (equality before law) and Article 19(1)(f) (freedom to acquire property, repealed later).

In Bishan Singh v. Khazan Singh (AIR 1958 SC 838), the Supreme Court underscored that the right of pre-emption is not natural or absolute but must be narrowly construed and strictly complied with.

Importance of Pre-emption in Islamic Jurisprudence

The doctrine of Shufa (pre-emption) occupies a pivotal place in Islamic jurisprudence, not merely as a legal tool but as a moral safeguard embedded within the broader Islamic worldview. It is designed to strike a harmonious balance between individual property rights and collective social responsibility, which is a recurring theme in Sharia-based legal systems. Rather than allowing complete alienation of property without concern for social impacts, Shufa seeks to regulate transactions in a way that minimizes communal discord and promotes social harmony.

At its core, pre-emption in Islamic law is less about commercial interests and more about preserving existing relationships and social structures, especially among co-owners, neighbours, and family members. In tribal or tightly-knit community settings, where social ties are critical to daily life, the intrusion of a stranger into shared property could lead to unrest, friction, or even conflict. Shufa, therefore, serves as a legal shield to prevent such disruption.

Legal and Moral Purposes of Shufa:

• Preservation of Social Cohesion: The doctrine discourages the sale of property to outsiders when there are eligible neighbours or co-owners willing to buy. This reduces the risk of disputes and maintains the trust and mutual dependence that often characterizes close communities.
• Protection of Co-ownership Interests: When multiple parties share rights in a property, it becomes essential to protect each party from an unexpected transfer of interest to a third party. Shufa ensures that co-owners are given the first opportunity to purchase, thereby preventing fragmentation or dilution of shared interests.
• Minimization of Future Disputes: Allowing unfamiliar individuals into shared or adjoining spaces could lead to boundary disputes, personality clashes, or conflict of interests. By offering the right of first refusal, Shufa proactively avoids such potential legal or social conflicts.
• Promotion of Stability and Continuity: By giving preference to those already integrated into the environment (like neighbours or co-heirs), Shufa helps maintain continuity in landholding patterns and local custom, thereby contributing to long-term stability.

In the landmark decision of Gobind Dayal v. Inayatullah (1885 ILR 7 All 775), the Privy Council acknowledged and upheld the validity of the right of pre-emption as customary law prevalent in many Indian Muslim communities. The court emphasized that Shufa was more than a contractual claim; it was a legal incident rooted in tradition, intended to prevent discord that might arise from introducing an unfamiliar or incompatible person into a shared or adjacent property setting.

The court observed:

“The right of pre-emption does not rest on any contractual relationship, but is a personal right designed to prevent potential disputes and safeguard communal peace.”

This case laid the foundation for understanding Shufa in the Indian legal context and is still referred to in cases involving personal laws and property rights under Muslim Law.

Broader Jurisprudential Significance:

In Islamic legal philosophy, Shufa is an example of how law is used as a mechanism for social engineering, promoting justice (‘adl’) and equity (‘ihsan’). While modern systems focus heavily on contractual freedoms, Islamic jurisprudence insists on weighing individual freedom against communal welfare, particularly in sensitive areas like landholding, inheritance, and family.

Thus, the importance of pre-emption lies not only in its function as a legal right but also in its deep ethical rationale: safeguarding the bonds of community, trust, and peaceful coexistence.

Comparison with Pre-emption in Other Legal Systems

While Shufa is unique to Islamic jurisprudence in its spiritual and moral foundation, similar doctrines exist in other legal systems, though often with different scopes and justifications.

Comparative analysis:

• Common Law (Right of First Refusal): Often seen in business and lease agreements, this right allows a party to match an offer before the property is sold to someone else.
• Civil Law Jurisdictions: Countries like France and Germany incorporate statutory pre-emption rights for tenants, municipalities, or family members, usually governed by public interest concerns.
• Hindu Law (Prior to codification): Though not formally codified, some customs allowed family members or co-parceners a preferential right to purchase property within joint families.
• Modern Indian Law (Transfer of Property Act, 1882): No express provision for pre-emption, but courts have occasionally upheld such rights if based on valid contract, statute, or customary usage.

The Supreme Court in K.K. Modi v. K.N. Modi (1998) 3 SCC 573 acknowledged that pre-emptive rights could be valid if arising from contract or statute, though Muslim Law pre-emption is treated distinctly as a personal law matter.

Theological Foundations of Shufa (Pre-emption)

While the Qur’an does not explicitly mention the doctrine of Shufa (pre-emption), the concept finds substantial support in the Hadith literature and is firmly grounded in the broader ethical framework of Islamic law. The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) recognized the practice of pre-emption as a valid legal mechanism in multiple narrations. One of the most widely cited Hadiths on the subject is found in Sahih al-Bukhari, where the Prophet stated that the right of pre-emption exists in all cases of partnership in land, property, or houses.

Similar reports in Sunan Abu Dawood and Sahih Muslim affirm that the Prophet granted the right of a co-owner or a neighbor to purchase a property before it was sold to a third party, thereby protecting their interest and maintaining social cohesion. These narrations form the backbone of Islamic jurisprudence on the subject and emphasize principles such as fairness, non-harm (la darar wa la dirar), and the importance of preventing potential conflict among community members.

Islamic jurists across different schools of thought have interpreted and applied the principle of Shufa in various ways, although its legitimacy is unanimously accepted. The Hanafi school grants an extensive right of Shufa, not only to co-owners but also to neighbors under certain conditions, and even allows pre-emption for some movable properties. The Maliki school is more restrictive, confining the right largely to co-owners and excluding neighbors unless shared amenities or access points are involved.

The Shafi’i school adopts a stricter interpretation, limiting Shufa almost exclusively to situations involving undivided co-ownership. The Hanbali school offers a middle ground, recognizing the right of neighbors under specific circumstances. Meanwhile, the Ja’fari (Shia) school accepts the doctrine but imposes stricter criteria for its application, particularly emphasizing intention and mutual consent. Despite these doctrinal differences, all schools agree that Shufa is rooted in Islamic objectives of equity and social harmony, and its application should serve the broader goals of justice and communal peace.

The right of Shufa serves purposes that transcend transactional convenience; it is deeply embedded in the ethical and moral fabric of Islamic jurisprudence. The doctrine is fundamentally aimed at preventing harm and promoting social harmony by giving preference to those directly affected by a property transaction, such as co-owners or adjacent property holders. This right ensures that individuals are not suddenly exposed to potential disruptions caused by unfamiliar third parties acquiring neighboring properties.

In this way, Shufa preserves the integrity of social relationships, especially in closely-knit communities. Furthermore, the doctrine reflects the Islamic legal principle of maslahah (public interest) by striking a balance between the sanctity of private ownership and the collective well-being of the community. It promotes fairness by offering a safeguard to vulnerable stakeholders and serves as a moral mechanism to resolve potential disputes amicably, in line with the broader objectives of Islamic law.

Objectives of Shufa (Pre-emption) under Muslim Law

The doctrine of Shufa, or pre-emption, is rooted in Islamic legal philosophy and is designed to balance individual property rights with communal harmony and fairness. The primary objective of Shufa is to protect existing co-owners, neighbours, or stakeholders from the introduction of an unwelcome outsider into a shared or adjoining property space. This right serves not only as a legal safeguard but also as a moral and social principle in Islamic jurisprudence.

At its core, Shufa is not merely a transactional right—it reflects the values of equity, justice, and social welfare. The principle encourages amicable relationships among neighbours and co-owners, reduces conflicts, and upholds social cohesion in close-knit communities.

Objectives of the Shufa doctrine include:

• Preservation of Neighborly Relations: To prevent disputes and maintain harmony by avoiding the intrusion of a stranger into a shared or adjacent property.
• Protection of Co-ownership Rights: To safeguard the rights of co-owners or joint stakeholders in a property from being undermined by third-party interference.
• Equitable Distribution: To ensure fairness by giving the rightful claimant (like a co-owner or neighbour) the first opportunity to acquire the property under similar conditions as the buyer.
• Discouragement of Speculative Purchases: To prevent opportunistic buying that could disrupt the social balance or manipulate property values in sensitive areas.
• Moral and Ethical Enforcement: To reflect the Islamic principles of fairness (Adl) and community responsibility.

Parties Involved in Shufa (Pre-emption) under Muslim Law

The doctrine of Shufa (pre-emption) arises primarily in the context of property transactions, where the law seeks to preserve social harmony and minimize conflict. To understand how the right of pre-emption is exercised, it is essential to identify the key parties involved in such a transaction. These parties play distinct roles, and their legal standing is central to determining whether a valid claim of Shufa can be made.

Broadly, the parties involved in the right of Shufa include:

• Pre-emptor (Shafi): The individual who claims the right of pre-emption. This person must fall within the legally recognized categories entitled to make such a claim.
• Vendor (Seller): The person who is transferring ownership of the immovable property to another through sale.
• Vendee (Buyer or Purchaser): The individual purchasing the property. It is against this person’s acquisition that the pre-emptor claims a superior right to purchase.
• Witnesses (in procedural steps): While not central to the ownership transaction, witnesses play a vital role in validating the demands made by the pre-emptor (especially in Talab-i-Ishhad).
• Court or Legal Authority: In formal enforcement, the legal system acts as the adjudicating body that validates, denies, or enforces the claim of Shufa.

For a pre-emptor to successfully enforce their right, the relationship between these parties must satisfy certain conditions. The claim can only be made when the vendee has not taken possession or when the pre-emptor acts within the stipulated legal framework. Furthermore, the nature of the relationship between the pre-emptor and the property, such as being a co-owner, adjacent owner, or having some easementary interest, is crucial in determining the validity of the claim.

Elements of Shufa (Pre-emption) under Muslim Law

The doctrine of Shufa, or pre-emption, under Muslim law operates as a right that permits certain individuals, typically co-owners or neighbors, to step into the shoes of a buyer in a property transaction and acquire the property on the same terms. This right is grounded in the Islamic objective of maintaining social harmony, preventing hostile entries into close-knit residential or ownership arrangements, and safeguarding the cohesion of familial or community property arrangements.

For the right of Shufa to be validly and effectively exercised, certain legal elements must be satisfied. These elements ensure that the claim of pre-emption is not misused and that it remains consistent with both religious principles and judicial scrutiny.

Essential Legal Ingredients

There are three essential ingredients that must be fulfilled before a claim for Shufa can be validly made. These ingredients form the procedural and substantive core of the doctrine.

#1 Existence of a Valid Sale

The foundation of a Shufa claim is the existence of a valid sale transaction. The right of pre-emption arises only when there is a bai‘ (sale) of immovable property. It does not extend to gifts, exchanges, waqf (religious endowment), or inheritance. The rationale is that only sales introduce new ownership into the property, thereby potentially disrupting existing relationships.

In Gobind Dayal v. Inayatullah (1885 ILR 7 All 775), the Privy Council underscored that Shufa is only applicable where there is a sale involving consideration and transfer of title. The court clarified that the right is not triggered by mere transfer of possession or by transactions without consideration.

#2 Timely and Proper Demands (Talabs)

Muslim law prescribes a strict three-step demand process, known as talabs, which the claimant must follow:

• Talab-i-Muwathibat: This is the immediate demand made as soon as the claimant learns of the sale. It must be made without any unreasonable delay, indicating the claimant’s clear and consistent intent to assert their right.
• Talab-i-Ishhad: The second demand must be made in the presence of witnesses, further affirming the seriousness of the claimant’s intention. Witnesses act as legal safeguards in case the matter goes to court.
• Talab-i-Tamlik: The final stage involves the institution of a formal legal proceeding or an offer to pay the sale price and take possession. This solidifies the claimant’s legal intention to step into the buyer’s position.

#3 Legal Competency of the Pre-emptor

The person asserting the right of Shufa must be legally competent to hold property. This includes being of sound mind, of legal age (unless represented by a guardian), and qualified under Muslim personal law. Minors and legally disqualified individuals may assert the right through lawful guardians or representatives.

These three elements, existence of a sale, timely demands, and legal competency—form the essential framework for establishing a valid claim under the doctrine of Shufa.

Classification of Pre-emptors

The law of Shufa gives preference to certain categories of individuals based on their relationship to the property. This hierarchical classification ensures that the person with the closest and most legitimate connection to the property is given priority in acquiring it.

1. Shafi-e-Sharik (Co-owner in the property): A co-owner of the property being sold, also referred to as a partner in the property, has the highest priority. Since this person already has a legal interest in the property, the law allows them to prevent outsiders from entering the co-ownership arrangement.
2. Shafi-e-Khalit (Partner in easement or amenities): This category includes individuals who share common amenities such as pathways, water sources, or courtyards with the property. Although they may not have ownership rights, their utility rights give them a vested interest in who occupies the neighboring property.
3. Shafi-e-Jar (Neighboring owner): The final and least prioritized category includes adjacent neighbors. Even though they lack any ownership or utility interest in the property, their right arises from the need to prevent possible inconvenience or conflict due to a new, potentially unfriendly neighbor.

Categories of Property Subject to Shufa

The doctrine of Shufa applies only to certain types of properties. Understanding what kinds of property qualify is crucial for determining the scope and limits of this right.

#1 Immovable Property

Shufa is confined to immovable properties such as land, buildings, and other permanently attached assets. Movable properties—like vehicles, jewelry, or livestock—are excluded from its ambit because they do not impact neighborhood dynamics in the same way.

#2 Residential and Commercial Properties

Although traditionally associated with residential land, the doctrine has been extended to commercial properties as well, especially in urban areas where mixed-use real estate is common. The critical requirement is that the sale must affect a party who qualifies as a pre-emptor under the law.

#3 Undivided or Co-owned Properties

The right of Shufa is particularly significant in cases where a property is undivided or where the claimant is a co-owner. In such scenarios, the entry of a third party could create friction or disturb the practical use of the property.

#4 Customary Properties

In some regions, customary law has extended Shufa to agricultural land or rural tenures. In Ramzan v. Hussaini (1990 All LJ 899), the court recognized the validity of Shufa in agricultural contexts based on long-standing local customs, provided the claimant could prove the existence and acceptance of such customs.

Who Can Exercise the Right of Shufa?

The right of Shufa (pre-emption) in Muslim Law is not open to every individual. It is a personal right that can only be exercised by specific categories of people who share a certain relationship, legal, residential, or possessory, with the property being sold. The law lays out a hierarchical structure of eligible claimants, prioritizing certain relationships over others. The aim is to minimize inconvenience to those who are directly affected by the transfer of property.

#1 Hierarchy of Claimants

Islamic jurisprudence categorizes the potential claimants of Shufa in a strict sequence. The rationale is that proximity in ownership or possession justifies the preference in acquiring the sold property.

The commonly accepted hierarchy is as follows:

• Shafi-i-Sharik – A co-owner in the property being sold. He has the strongest right to pre-empt as he shares undivided ownership.
• Shafi-i-Khalit – A person who shares some rights in the amenities or appurtenances of the property (e.g., a shared courtyard or common wall).
• Shafi-i-Jar – An immediate neighbour. Though the weakest of the three, this category still enjoys a recognized pre-emptive right.

These categories were upheld in the landmark case of Gobind Dayal v. Inayatullah (1885) ILR 7 All 775, where the Privy Council recognized the rights of neighbours under the Hanafi school, provided the higher-ranking claimants had not exercised their rights.

#2 Legal Status of Co-owners, Neighbours, and Others

Each category of claimant has a unique legal status under Muslim law, and the right must be exercised in accordance with it.

• Co-owners (Sharik): Recognized as having the strongest claim, co-owners can pre-empt even before others if they share undivided ownership.
• Adjacent Property Owners (Jar): The right is contingent upon contiguity and uninterrupted proximity. The neighbor must share a physical boundary with the property.
• Joint Users (Khalit): Their rights are valid if they have customary or legal rights over shared amenities, such as wells, passageways, or courtyards.

Other persons not falling into these categories such as distant relatives, friends, or tenants, have no right of Shufa unless specific contractual or customary rights exist.

#3 Rights of Women and Minor Heirs under Shufa

The right of Shufa is not restricted by gender or age, as long as the claimant qualifies within the recognized categories.

• Women: Women enjoy equal legal rights to claim Shufa under Muslim Law. If a woman is a co-owner or neighbor, she is fully entitled to assert this right.
• Minor Heirs: Minors also retain the right to Shufa through their lawful guardians. The guardian must act in the minor’s best interest and exercise the right within the legally permitted time.

Conditions for Invoking Shufa (Pre-emption) under Muslim Law

The right of Shufa (pre-emption) can only be exercised when specific legal and factual conditions are satisfied. This doctrine, deeply rooted in Islamic jurisprudence, is not an automatic right but a conditional one that arises only under certain circumstances. These conditions ensure that the doctrine is not misused and is invoked only in appropriate cases to protect the legitimate interests of co-owners, neighbours, and other eligible claimants.

At its core, the right of Shufa aims to prevent unwanted third parties from acquiring a share in property, thereby preserving privacy, security, and social harmony in a Muslim community. However, Islamic jurists have laid down strict prerequisites that must be fulfilled before a person can lawfully exercise this right.

Conditions for invoking Shufa include:

• Existence of a valid sale: The right arises only upon the actual sale of immovable property, not gifts, wills, or exchanges.
• Immovable property involved: Shufa is typically applicable only to immovable properties such as land, houses, or buildings, not to movable assets.
• Eligibility of the claimant: Only individuals who fall under the recognized categories of pre-emptors (e.g., co-sharers, neighbours, or adjacent owners) can claim this right.
• Prompt action by the claimant: The claimant must act without undue delay to assert their right, demonstrating seriousness and good faith.

Proper performance of demands (Talabs):

• Talab-i-Muwathibat: The immediate declaration of intent to claim upon learning of the sale.
• Talab-i-Ishhad: A formal demand made in the presence of witnesses.
• Talab-i-Tamlik: A legal action or formal claim filed in court to assert the right.

In addition to these legal formalities, the claimant must not have waived or abandoned the right of Shufa in any explicit or implicit manner. For instance, if the pre-emptor fails to make the required demands or delays filing a suit after expressing intent, their claim may be dismissed as invalid.

Procedure for Enforcing the Right of Shufa

The right of Shufa (pre-emption) must be exercised through a specific legal procedure under Muslim Law. This procedure is structured in three formal stages, Talab-i-Muwathibat, Talab-i-Ishhad, and Talab-i-Tamlik, which ensure that the claimant has acted promptly, publicly, and with legal clarity. Each stage reflects the claimant’s seriousness in asserting their right and helps prevent abuse of the Shufa provision.

#1 Talab-i-Muwathibat (Immediate Demand)

This is the first and most crucial step in claiming the right of Shufa. As soon as the pre-emptor (the person entitled to Shufa) becomes aware of the sale of the property, they must make an immediate demand to assert their interest.

• The demand must be made as soon as the pre-emptor hears about the sale.
• It should be made clearly and unambiguously.
• Any delay in making this demand can result in forfeiture of the right.
• It can be made verbally and does not need to be witnessed or in writing at this stage.

Example: If a neighbor hears about the sale of an adjoining house, they must promptly declare their intention to purchase it under Shufa before any formal transaction occurs.

#2 Talab-i-Ishhad (Demand with Witnesses)

After the immediate demand, the next step is to repeat the demand in the presence of witnesses. This demand validates the seriousness of the claim and helps prevent future disputes over the existence of a claim.

• This demand should follow Talab-i-Muwathibat without unreasonable delay.
• It should be made in the presence of two or more adult, sane, and reliable witnesses.
• The witnesses should be informed that this is a demand under the right of Shufa.
• If possible, this demand should be made in front of the seller or the buyer.

This stage acts as a public notice of the pre-emptor’s intention and creates a record for legal purposes. The presence of witnesses strengthens the claim if contested in court.

#3 Talab-i-Tamlik (Formal Claim of Possession)

The final step is the Talab-i-Tamlik, which involves the formal assertion of the right through legal channels. At this point, the pre-emptor is required to approach a court of law and seek possession of the property by offering to pay the sale price.

• The claim must be filed within a reasonable time, as prescribed by law.
• The pre-emptor must deposit or offer the purchase price to the court.
• Legal notice must be given to the seller and buyer.
• The court will examine the procedure followed and the validity of the claim.

This stage converts the pre-emptor’s intention into legal action, allowing the judiciary to decide whether the right of Shufa should be granted.

When and How the Right of Shufa is Lost

The right of Shufa (pre-emption) is not absolute and can be lost under certain circumstances. Muslim Law imposes specific procedural and substantive requirements for exercising this right. Any deviation or lapse in fulfilling these requirements can result in the forfeiture of the right.

The right of Shufa can be lost in the following ways:

• Failure to Make Immediate Demand (Talab-i-Muwathibat): The pre-emptor must make an immediate oral declaration of their intention to exercise the right as soon as they learn of the sale. Failure to do so results in the loss of the right.
• Failure to Follow Up with Witnessed Demand (Talab-i-Ishhad): After the initial demand, the claimant must reiterate the demand in the presence of witnesses without unreasonable delay. Omitting this step renders the claim invalid.
• Non-Execution of Final Demand (Talab-i-Tamlik): The pre-emptor must approach the court and make a formal claim to possess the property, usually before the sale is completed. If this step is not completed timely, the right is lost.
• Unreasonable Delay or Inaction: Even if the demands are made, prolonged inaction without pursuing legal remedies can be interpreted as abandonment of the right.
• Conduct Indicating Waiver of Right: If the claimant willingly refrains from asserting their right or acts in a manner suggesting consent to the sale, such conduct may be treated as a waiver.
• Sale to Another Pre-emptor with Higher or Equal Right: If the property is sold to someone who has an equal or superior claim under the hierarchy of pre-emptors, the original claimant’s right is nullified.
• Contractual or Legal Bar: The right may also be lost if there is an explicit contractual clause waiving it, or if a statute overrides or prohibits its enforcement in specific contexts.

Losing the right of Shufa essentially means that the claimant can no longer legally compel the buyer to transfer the property in their favor. The courts are generally strict in interpreting the procedural requirements of Shufa, making it essential for a claimant to act promptly, follow formalities accurately, and avoid any conduct that could be construed as acquiescence or waiver.

Constitutional and Statutory Validity of Shufa (Pre-emption) in India

Impact of the 44th Constitutional Amendment

Before the enactment of the 44th Constitutional Amendment Act in 1978, the right to property was enshrined as a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31 of the Indian Constitution. During this period, laws that imposed restrictions on the sale or transfer of property, such as the doctrine of pre-emption, were often challenged for infringing upon this fundamental right.

The judicial position before 1978 was clear in striking down such restrictions, especially when they were based solely on vicinage (neighborhood proximity). The Supreme Court, in multiple decisions, held that these provisions were unconstitutional as they violated the individual’s fundamental freedom to dispose of property.

Some developments include:

• Bhau Ram v. Baji Nath (AIR 1962 SC 1476): The Court ruled that pre-emption based on vicinage was unconstitutional and violated the fundamental right to property.
• Sant Ram v. Labh Singh (AIR 1965 SC 314): Reinforced the earlier stance by invalidating laws that allowed pre-emption merely on the basis of neighborhood proximity.

However, the legal landscape changed significantly after the 44th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1978, which repealed Articles 19(1)(f) and 31, thereby removing the right to property from the list of fundamental rights. This right was reintroduced as a constitutional right under Article 300A.

This amendment altered the constitutional scrutiny of pre-emption laws. While the right to property remains protected, it is now subject to reasonable restrictions under ordinary law, provided such laws pass the tests of Articles 14 and 15 (equality and non-discrimination).

Relevant Supreme Court Judgments

The Supreme Court has continued to evolve its interpretation of pre-emption rights through various judgments. The post-constitutional amendment cases reflect a more balanced approach, acknowledging both the historical significance of Shufa and the need to align with modern constitutional values.

Some landmark cases include:

Lrs Raghunath (D) v. Radha Mohan (AIR 2020 SC 5026):

• The Court emphasized that pre-emption rights are not absolute and must be invoked only when the legal need arises.
• The right cannot be exercised indefinitely or arbitrarily; it must be used with due diligence.

Modern Perspective:

• The Court has clarified that pre-emption rights are limited in scope, especially in urban or developed contexts.
• These rights are more relevant in specific circumstances, such as agricultural land or joint tenancy, where the doctrine continues to have practical significance.

Conflict with Right to Equality and Property

Even though pre-emption is no longer in conflict with a fundamental right to property, it can still raise constitutional issues under Articles 14 and 15, especially when:

• It arbitrarily favors certain classes of people (e.g., neighbors over buyers with no valid objection).
• It creates discriminatory barriers in the property market, particularly in urban areas.
• It interferes with the freedom of contract and market-based transactions.

Criticism and Concerns:

• The doctrine of Shufa, in its classical form, can conflict with modern property norms and commercial realities.
• It is often criticized for being vague, prone to misuse, and outdated in the context of a dynamic real estate market.
• While its cultural and historical relevance remains, courts now demand strict compliance with procedural requirements to validate a claim under Shufa.

Application of Shufa under Indian Legal Framework

The right of Shufa (pre-emption) under Muslim Law, while rooted deeply in Islamic jurisprudence, has faced complex challenges in its application within the Indian legal framework. India’s pluralistic legal system recognizes personal laws for different religious communities, and Muslim Personal Law governs matters like inheritance, marriage, and property for Indian Muslims. Within this scope, Shufa continues to be recognized, but its enforceability is shaped by statutory limitations, constitutional scrutiny, and judicial interpretation.

In India, Shufa is not codified through a central statute, which means its application depends on a combination of Muslim personal law principles, regional statutory provisions, and judicial precedents. Courts have often examined whether the practice aligns with constitutional values like the right to equality and the right to property. Additionally, the absence of uniformity across states leads to varying degrees of acceptance and implementation.

Aspects of Shufa’s Application in India:

• By Muslim Personal Law: Shufa is primarily governed by uncodified Muslim Personal Law. The doctrines laid down by classical jurists are followed, especially by Sunni Hanafi schools, which are dominant in India. However, the enforcement depends on whether it contradicts broader statutory or constitutional provisions.
• By Statutes (State-specific laws): Some Indian states have enacted specific laws or regulations concerning pre-emption rights, especially in rural/agricultural land contexts. These may override or influence the applicability of Shufa. For example:
  • • The Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913
    • The Rajasthan Pre-emption Act, 1966
    • The Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (limited application)
• By Customs: In certain regions, customary practices among Muslim communities supplement or modify the traditional rules of Shufa. These customs may influence who can claim the right and how it is exercised.
• By Contract: In some cases, the right of pre-emption is contractually agreed upon between parties. This modern application creates a hybrid between personal law and private contract law, allowing for more predictable enforcement.

Despite these various avenues, the constitutional validity of Shufa has come under scrutiny. Critics argue that Shufa may conflict with the right to equality under Article 14 and the right to property under Article 300A of the Indian Constitution.

Shufa in Other Countries

The right of Shufa (pre-emption), although rooted in Islamic jurisprudence, has evolved differently across jurisdictions that implement or have historically recognized Muslim personal law. Each country reflects its own legal, constitutional, and societal context in shaping the application of Shufa. Understanding how Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Middle Eastern countries interpret and implement this doctrine provides valuable perspective for comparative legal analysis.

Pakistan

In Pakistan, Shufa is recognized under both Islamic law and statutory provisions. The country has codified the right of pre-emption through the Punjab Pre-Emption Act, 1991, and similar laws in other provinces. Courts in Pakistan have consistently upheld this right with a focus on preserving neighborhood harmony and upholding traditional Islamic values.

Features of Shufa in Pakistan include:

• Codified Legislation: Provinces have enacted specific pre-emption laws, particularly in Punjab, Sindh, and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.
• Strict Timeframes: The law imposes rigid deadlines for making demands, closely following the traditional talab procedures.
• Hierarchy of Pre-emptors: Recognized categories include co-owners, participators in amenities, and neighbors in descending priority.
• Judicial Interpretation: Courts have upheld the right of Shufa provided procedural formalities, especially the triple talab, are strictly followed.

Despite its statutory foundation, the doctrine has faced criticism for clashing with modern property rights and urban development needs.

Bangladesh

In Bangladesh, Shufa remains embedded in Muslim personal law but without the extensive codification seen in Pakistan. The application is largely governed by judicial precedent and traditional Islamic principles, particularly for Muslims governed by Hanafi law.

Notable aspects of Shufa in Bangladesh include:

• Uncodified Framework: There is no specific legislation on Shufa; it is enforced through Islamic law as interpreted by courts.
• Priority Among Pre-emptors: Preference is typically given to co-owners and adjoining property owners.
• Limited Urban Application: Courts have often limited the right in urban transactions, recognizing its incompatibility with economic development.
• Reliance on Judicial Precedent: Landmark decisions shape the contours of pre-emption rights in the absence of statutory law.

The Bangladeshi judiciary tends to balance traditional Islamic rights with practical considerations such as development and fairness in commerce.

Middle Eastern Countries

Middle Eastern countries exhibit a diverse approach to the doctrine of Shufa, often depending on the extent of Sharia implementation and the role of civil law systems.

Here’s a snapshot of how it is approached:

• Saudi Arabia: Strong reliance on Hanbali jurisprudence, with pre-emption rights recognized in accordance with Islamic principles. However, courts are more cautious in urban or commercial disputes.
• United Arab Emirates (UAE): Civil law influences dominate, but Shufa is still acknowledged in real estate dealings involving Muslim parties. UAE law provides mechanisms for pre-emptive rights in specific property arrangements.
• Egypt: A mixed legal system with substantial civil law influence has led to a modified recognition of Shufa, often limited to familial or agricultural land situations.
• Jordan and Syria: Both recognize Shufa under their civil codes but have restricted its scope to prevent abuse and promote economic development.

Across the Middle East, the trend leans toward limiting Shufa in commercial and urban real estate while preserving its essence in familial and rural contexts.

Landmark Cases Relating to Pre-Emption (Shufa) Under Muslim Law

Govind Dayal v. Inayatullah (1885)

In the case of Govind Dayal v. Inayatullah (1885) 7 All 775, Justice Syed Mahmood provided a seminal definition of pre-emption under Muslim law. The court held that Shufa is a right vested in the owner of an immovable property to acquire another immovable property sold to a third party on the same terms as the original sale. This case established that the right of pre-emption is not merely a personal right but a proprietary one, linked to the ownership of adjacent or co-owned property. The ruling emphasized the importance of Shufa in preventing the inconvenience caused by strangers acquiring property, laying a foundational precedent for its application in India.

Kunwar Digamber Singh v. Kunwar Ahmad Sayeed Khan (1914)

In the case of Kunwar Digamber Singh v. Kunwar Ahmad Sayeed Khan (1914), the Privy Council explored the historical origins of pre-emption in British India. The court observed that Shufa originated in Mohammedan law and was initially applied to village communities to prevent outsiders from acquiring property. This case clarified that pre-emption could be based on Muslim personal law, customs, or agreements, and its application was not limited to Muslims but extended to Hindus in certain regions through customary practices. The ruling highlighted the evolution of Shufa as a customary right in India, influencing its broader application.

Najam-un-Nissa v. Ajaib Ali (1900)

In the case of Najam-un-Nissa v. Ajaib Ali (1900) 22 All 342, the Allahabad High Court ruled that the right of pre-emption arises only in cases of valid and complete sales or exchanges of property. The court held that Shufa does not apply to transfers through gifts, inheritance, waqf, or leases. This decision underscored the necessity of a bona fide and completed sale transaction for a pre-emption claim to be valid, setting a precedent for limiting the scope of Shufa to specific types of property transfers.

Audh Behari Singh v. Gajadhar Jaipuria (1954)

In the case of Audh Behari Singh v. Gajadhar Jaipuria (AIR 1954 SC 41), the Supreme Court of India articulated that the law of pre-emption imposes a limitation on the owner’s unfettered right to sell property. The court ruled that Shufa compels the owner to offer the property to a co-sharer or neighbor before selling it to a stranger, aligning with the principles of Muslim personal law. This landmark judgment reinforced the constitutional validity of pre-emption at the time, emphasizing its role in maintaining social harmony among co-owners and neighbors.

Vijayalakshmi v. B. Himantharaja Chetty (1996)

In the case of Vijayalakshmi v. B. Himantharaja Chetty (1996) 9 SCC 376, the Supreme Court reiterated Mulla’s definition of Shufa as the right of an immovable property owner to acquire another property sold to a third party. The court clarified that pre-emption is a right of substitution, allowing the pre-emptor to step into the shoes of the buyer by paying the same price. This case affirmed the procedural formalities, such as the three demands (talab-i-muwasibat, talab-i-ishhad, and talab-i-tamlik), required to enforce Shufa, solidifying their mandatory nature in pre-emption claims.

Ibrahim Saib v. Muni-mi-ud-din (1870)

In the case of Ibrahim Saib v. Muni-mi-ud-din (1870), the court addressed the conflict between pre-emption and statutory laws like the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The judgment held that Shufa restricts the freedom of sale under general property laws, as it prioritizes the pre-emptor’s right over the vendee’s. This case was significant in recognizing that Muslim personal law, including Shufa, could override general statutory provisions in certain contexts, particularly when the parties involved were Muslims.

Mohd. Beg v. Narayan Megha Ji Patil (1907)

In the case of Mohd. Beg v. Narayan Megha Ji Patil (1907), the court further examined the tension between Shufa and the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The ruling affirmed that pre-emption, as part of Muslim personal law, imposes a legal obligation on the vendor to offer the property to the pre-emptor before selling to a stranger. This case reinforced the principle that Shufa is a technical right requiring strict compliance with formalities, such as immediate assertion of the claim upon learning of the sale (talab-i-muwasibat).

Bhoop v. Matadin Bhardwaj (1991)

In the case of Bhoop v. Matadin Bhardwaj (AIR 1991 SC 373), the Supreme Court addressed the constitutional validity of pre-emption based on vicinage (neighborhood). The court struck down pre-emption claims based solely on the neighbor’s proximity as unconstitutional, ruling that they violated Article 14 (equality before the law) of the Indian Constitution. This landmark decision limited the scope of Shufa in modern India, confining its application primarily to co-sharers and excluding neighbors unless supported by custom or contract.

Ram Saran Lall v. Domini Kuer (1961)

In the case of Ram Saran Lall v. Domini Kuer (AIR 1961 SC 1747), the Supreme Court examined the applicability of pre-emption under customary law in regions like Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. The court held that where Shufa is recognized as a customary right, it applies to both Muslims and Hindus, provided the custom is proven. This case was pivotal in clarifying that pre-emption could extend beyond Muslim personal law to Hindus in specific localities, based on established customs or agreements.

Bhau Ram v. Baij Nath Singh (1962)

In the case of Bhau Ram v. Baij Nath Singh (AIR 1962 SC 1476), the Supreme Court ruled that statutory pre-emption laws, such as the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, were unconstitutional to the extent that they violated fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(f) and 31 of the Constitution (prior to the 44th Amendment). The court held that restrictions on property rights through pre-emption must be reasonable and in the public interest. This case significantly impacted the enforceability of Shufa under statutory frameworks, prompting a reevaluation of its constitutional legitimacy.

Sakina Bibi v. Amiran (1888)

In the case of Sakina Bibi v. Amiran (1888) 10 All 452, the Allahabad High Court held that the right of pre-emption (Shufa) is exercised against the owner of the property, regardless of whether they are in possession. The court clarified that ownership, not possession, determines the right to claim Shufa. This ruling emphasized that the pre-emptor’s claim is rooted in their proprietary interest in adjacent or co-owned property, reinforcing the legal foundation of Shufa as a right tied to ownership under Muslim law.

Indira Bai v. Nandkishore (1991)

In the case of Indira Bai v. Nandkishore (1991) 2 SCC 540, the Supreme Court described the right of pre-emption under Muslim personal law as a “feeble and weak right” that can be defeated by estoppel. The court ruled that if a pre-emptor’s conduct suggests acquiescence or waiver, such as failing to assert the right promptly, the claim could be barred. This decision highlighted the strict procedural requirements for Shufa and its vulnerability to legal defenses, shaping its cautious application in modern contexts.

Bishan Singh v. Khazan Singh (1958)

In the case of Bishan Singh v. Khazan Singh (AIR 1958 SC 838), the Supreme Court laid down key principles governing pre-emption, stating that it is not a right to the property itself but a right to an offer of the property before it is sold to a third party. The court emphasized that Shufa is a right of substitution, not repurchase, and is considered a weak right that can be defeated by legitimate claims, such as estoppel or waiver. This ruling clarified the nature of Shufa as a preferential right, influencing its procedural enforcement.

Raghunath v. Radha Mohan (2020)

In the case of Raghunath v. Radha Mohan (2020) 15 SCC 717, the Supreme Court ruled that pre-emption rights must be exercised at the first instance of sale. The court held that if a co-owner or pre-emptor fails to assert their right when the property is initially offered for sale, they cannot claim Shufa after the sale is completed. This decision underscored the importance of timely action in pre-emption claims, particularly under statutory or customary frameworks, and limited the scope of belated claims.

Mohammad Mahboob Ali v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022)

In the case of Mohammad Mahboob Ali v. State of Uttar Pradesh (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1234 of 2022), the Allahabad High Court addressed a pre-emption claim under Muslim personal law in the context of modern property laws. The court reiterated that Shufa applies only to valid, complete, and bona fide sales, not to transfers like gifts or waqf. The ruling also noted that constitutional challenges, such as those under Article 14, have restricted Shufa’s application, particularly for claims based on vicinage, aligning with Bhoop v. Matadin Bhardwaj (1991). This case reflects the diminishing scope of Shufa in contemporary India. [Source: Allahabad High Court Judgments, available via Manupatra]

Bottom Line

Shufa (pre-emption) under Muslim Law is a legal right that allows a neighbor, co-owner, or partner in undivided property to purchase a share of immovable property before it is sold to an outsider. Rooted in Islamic jurisprudence, Shufa aims to prevent the intrusion of strangers and preserve community harmony.

The right is exercised through a structured three-step process: immediate demand (Talab-i-Muwathibat), demand with witnesses (Talab-i-Ishhad), and formal claim (Talab-i-Tamlik). While recognized under Muslim personal law in India, its applicability varies by region, and constitutional debates persist regarding its compatibility with modern property rights.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What is pre-emption in Muslim law?

Pre-emption (Shufa) in Muslim law is the right of a person to acquire a property in preference to others, primarily to prevent harm from a new neighbor and maintain social harmony. It allows certain individuals, like co-owners or adjacent property owners, to step into the buyer’s shoes upon the sale of immovable property.

What is preemption in Islam?

In Islam, preemption (Shufa) is a right recognized in Islamic jurisprudence that allows a person with a legal interest, such as a co-owner or neighbor, to purchase property being sold before it’s sold to an outsider. The aim is to prevent potential disputes and maintain unity and fairness in community relations.

What is the concept of pre-emption?

The concept of pre-emption involves giving priority to certain individuals to purchase a property before it is sold to a third party. This right is exercised to prevent the intrusion of strangers that may disrupt existing harmony and relations, particularly in joint ownership or neighborhood settings.

What are the three stages of claiming the right of pre-emption under Muslim law?

The three stages are:

1. Talab-i-Muwathibat (Immediate Demand): Immediate verbal assertion of the right upon knowledge of the sale.
2. Talab-i-Ishhad (Demand with Witnesses): Formal claim made in front of witnesses.
3. Talab-i-Tamlik (Claim of Ownership): Legal action or formal possession taken to enforce the right.

What is a pre-emption process?

The pre-emption process includes:

• Declaring intent (first demand) immediately upon learning of the sale
• Asserting the right formally with witnesses (second demand)
• Filing a legal claim or taking possession (third demand)
  It must be done in strict chronological order.

What are the grounds for pre-emption?

Grounds include:

• Co-ownership of property
• Common wall or pathway
• Adjacency (being a neighbor)
• Customary rights under specific personal or regional laws

What is the pre-emption period?

The right must be exercised without undue delay, typically as soon as the pre-emptor becomes aware of the sale. Delays can invalidate the claim. The exact period can vary by jurisdiction or court interpretation.

What is section 22 right of preemption?

Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (not Muslim Law) provides co-heirs the right of pre-emption if another heir sells their interest. Though not Islamic law, it’s a similar legal provision in statutory law, not applicable under Shariat.

What are pre-emption rights examples?

• A co-owner exercising the right to buy a sold share of jointly owned land.
• A neighbor claiming pre-emption on an adjacent house to prevent a stranger from entering the locality.

What is pre-emption cases?

Pre-emption cases are legal disputes where one party asserts the right of Shufa against a buyer or seller of property. Courts analyze conditions like immediate demand, lawful relationship, and timely action to determine validity.

What is the principle of pre-emption?

The principle is based on preventing harm, preserving community interest, and ensuring fairness by giving the first right to purchase immovable property to those closely connected to it (e.g., co-owners or neighbors).

What is the nature of pre-emption?

Pre-emption is a right of substitution, not of repurchase. It’s a restrictive right that must be claimed before a third-party sale is finalized, based on justice, equity, and neighborhood harmony.

What do you mean by pre-emption?

Pre-emption means the right to be preferred in purchasing a property over a third party, particularly by someone with an existing stake or proximity, as recognized under Muslim law.

Who can claim preemption?

Eligible claimants include:

• Co-owners of the property
• Participants in amenities (shared paths, wells, etc.)
• Adjacent neighbors
  Eligibility and priority differ across Islamic schools (Hanafi, Shafi’i, etc.).

What is the right of preemption in law?

In general law, the right of preemption is the right to buy property before others when the owner decides to sell. It exists in statutory forms (e.g., shareholders’ rights, tenancy laws) and in personal laws like Muslim Law through Shufa.