Skip to content


Faqir Muhammad Khan and ors. Vs. Kulsum Bibi - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1896)ILR18All298
AppellantFaqir Muhammad Khan and ors.
RespondentKulsum Bibi
Excerpt:
.....and administered by the cantonment board. [deolali cantonment board v usha devidas dongre, 1993 mah.lj 74; 1993 lab ic 1858 overruled]. - it must not be inferred that the court would hold that a pre-emptor who purposely went to an uninhabited and distant part of the village, a share in which was sold, and there in the presence of his couple of witnesses made a second demand under circumstances which would not make it likely that the demand would come to the ears of the vendee, would be making a bond fide and good demand according to the muhammadan law......intention to pre-empt made in the presence of witnesses within the area of the zamindari the two-anna share in which was sold. the owner of an undivided two-anna zamindari share is an owner of every portion of the zamindari, although his interest is limited to a two-anna share. we bold that this demand was made on the premises within the meaning of the muhammadan law, and, as it was made in the presence of witnesses and was immediate, it was sufficient. it must not be inferred that the court would hold that a pre-emptor who purposely went to an uninhabited and distant part of the village, a share in which was sold, and there in the presence of his couple of witnesses made a second demand under circumstances which would not make it likely that the demand would come to the ears of the.....
Judgment:

John Edge, Kt., C.J. and Burkitt, J.

1. A two-anna undivided share in a zamindari village was sold. The plaintiffs, who were shareholders in the village, claimed pre-emption under the Muhammadan law. They proved an immediate assertion of the intention to pre-empt made in the presence of witnesses within the area of the zamindari the two-anna share in which was sold. The owner of an undivided two-anna zamindari share is an owner of every portion of the zamindari, although his interest is limited to a two-anna share. We bold that this demand was made on the premises within the meaning of the Muhammadan law, and, as it was made in the presence of witnesses and was immediate, it was sufficient. It must not be inferred that the Court would hold that a pre-emptor who purposely went to an uninhabited and distant part of the village, a share in which was sold, and there in the presence of his couple of witnesses made a second demand under circumstances which would not make it likely that the demand would come to the ears of the vendee, would be making a bond fide and good demand according to the Muhammadan law. There is no doubt as to the bond fides of the demand in the present case. We dismiss this appeal with costs.


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