Skip to content


Manog Dat Vs. Lachmi NaraIn and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1885)ILR7All291
AppellantManog Dat
RespondentLachmi NaraIn and anr.
Excerpt:
pre-emption - wajib-ul-arz--'transfer'--'sale.' - cantonments act[c.a. no. 41/2006]. section 346 & cantonment fund (servants rules, 1937, rules 13, 14 & 15: [h.l. gokhale, ag. cj, p.v. hardas, naresh h. patil, r.m. borde & r.m. savant, jj] jurisdiction of school tribunal constituted under maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, (3 of 1978) held, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the maharashtra act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the cantonment board. teacher employed in the..........a preferential claim to the defendants. the question which arises is, whether the defendants had acquired rights in the village before the 3rd september 1881. we are of opinion that they had, for the first interest which they acquired was on the 1st september 1881, when they entered into an agreement with the female defendant that, in consideration of their bringing an action for recovery of her share, they should have a moiety. she thus by that agreement transferred, on the 1st september 1881, one-half of what she was to get to them. the present defendants found funds for the two suits, which eventually were compromised, the musammat getting a less share than she supposed. then v followed a re-adjustment of the amount of the interest in that share between her and the defendants, and.....
Judgment:

W. Comer Petheram, C.J.

1. The plaintiff sued to enforce a right of pre-emption, and his right in the village was acquired on the 3rd September 1881, by purchase and not by inheritance. He was not an old co-sharer, and, as regards the merits, there is no reason why he should succeed, not being such a co-sharer, unless he can show a preferential claim to the defendants. The question which arises is, whether the defendants had acquired rights in the village before the 3rd September 1881. We are of opinion that they had, for the first interest which they acquired was on the 1st September 1881, when they entered into an agreement with the female defendant that, in consideration of their bringing an action for recovery of her share, they should have a moiety. She thus by that agreement transferred, on the 1st September 1881, one-half of what she was to get to them. The present defendants found funds for the two suits, which eventually were compromised, the Musammat getting a less share than she supposed. Then v followed a re-adjustment of the amount of the interest in that share between her and the defendants, and they got a larger share of her interest than had originally been contemplated, but in reality a less share in the village. It cannot, however, be said that their right was not created till then. The real transfer was given effect to on 1st September 1881, and the plaintiff has no right as against the defendants by way of claim for pre-emption.

2. The Munsif's judgment is correct and will be restored, this appeal being decreed with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //