Skip to content


Banwari Ram and anr. Vs. Muhammad Yar Khan and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1941All49
AppellantBanwari Ram and anr.
RespondentMuhammad Yar Khan and anr.
Excerpt:
- 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 school run by cantonment board being covered under..........a suit for pre-emption. the suit was filed by mohammad yar khan. he made a waqf alalaulad of his entire property. he sued however first of all in his private capacity. during the course of the proceedings in the trial court he filed an application for the amendment of plaint. this application was allowed and by his amendment the plaintiff described himself as mutwalli. both the courts below have granted decree for pre-emption.2. in appeal it was urged for the appellants that inasmuch as the plaintiff was not a co-sharer within the meaning of section 4, agra pre-emption act, he was not entitled to maintain a suit for pre-emption. this contention in our judgment is sound. a co-sharer is defined in section 4, agra pre-emption act, as a personother than a petty proprietor, entitled as.....
Judgment:

Thom, C.J.

1. This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. The suit was filed by Mohammad Yar Khan. He made a waqf alalaulad of his entire property. He sued however first of all in his private capacity. During the course of the proceedings in the trial Court he filed an application for the amendment of plaint. This application was allowed and by his amendment the plaintiff described himself as mutwalli. Both the Courts below have granted decree for pre-emption.

2. In appeal it was urged for the appellants that inasmuch as the plaintiff was not a co-sharer within the meaning of Section 4, Agra Pre-emption Act, he was not entitled to maintain a suit for pre-emption. This contention in our judgment is sound. A co-sharer is defined in Section 4, Agra Pre-emption Act, as a person

other than a petty proprietor, entitled as proprietor to any share or part in a mahal or village whether his name is or is not recorded in the register of proprietors.

3. Now the plaintiff having divested himself of his entire property and that property having vested in the Almighty the plaintiff was not a person entitled to any share or part in the mahal or village in which that property sought to be pre-empted is situated. He is not therefore entitled to maintain a suit for pre-emption. In this connexion we refer to the case in Muhammad Baksh v. Ram Prasad : AIR1927All571 . In that case a Bench of this Court held that a person who had divested himself of his entire property by means of a waqf deed was not entitled to resist a claim for pre-emption upon the precise ground that he was no longer a cosharer in the village in which the property sought to be pre-empted was situated. The respondents relied on the case in Mohommad Pamal Shah Khan v. Mohammad Salamat Ali Khan : AIR1933All407 . In that case a Bench of this Court held that if a person is liable for the payment of the land revenue along with other co-sharers in the village, then he must be deemed to be a cosharer in spite of the fact that the estate in the share may not vest in him. No doubt for the purposes of the Agra Pre-emption Act the person who is liable in respect of land revenue is regarded as a cosharer. 'Cosharer' is not defined in the Agra Tenancy Act but is defined in the Agra Pre-emption Act. The plaintiff having executed a waqf deed under which he divested himself of his entire property is no longer a cosharer as defined in the latter Act. He is not therefore entitled to maintain a suit for pre-emption.

4. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff requested the Court to allow him to amend his plaint so as to substitute the Almighty for himself as the plaintiff. The plaintiff however, knew at an early stage of the proceedings that his plaint was defective. He was given an opportunity to amend his plaint. His amendment has not removed the defect and in all the circumstances, and especially since the application for amendment is made well beyond the period of limitation, we do not consider that any further indulgence should be granted to the plaintiff. In the result the appeal is allowed, the order of the lower appellate Court is set aside and the suit is dismissed with costs. The costs will be payable out of the assets of the plaintiff who is deceased.


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