Skip to content


AmIn Chand Vs. Yad Ram and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1926All537a
AppellantAmIn Chand
RespondentYad Ram and anr.
Excerpt:
- - when the plaintiff failed to prove that he was so entitled, he cannot call himself anything more than a mere petty proprietor as defined in section 4(7) of the pre-emption act......plaintiff failed to prove that he was so entitled, he cannot call himself anything more than a mere petty proprietor as defined in section 4(7) of the pre-emption act. the suit must stand dismissed and this appeal is dismissed with.....
Judgment:

Sulaiman, J.

1. The plaintiff's suit for pre-emption has been dismissed by both the Courts below on a finding that he is a mere petty proprietor and not a co-sharer. He claims the rights of a co-sharer by virtue of a sale-deed of the year 1891 under which he purchased five specific plots. The sale-deed itself contains a clause that the plots were being sold to him without concern with anything else. The learned Judge has found that the plaintiff is not entitled to any interest in the joint lands in the mahal and is not entitled to take part in the administration of its affairs. When the plaintiff failed to prove that he was so entitled, he cannot call himself anything more than a mere petty proprietor as defined in Section 4(7) of the Pre-emption Act. The suit must stand dismissed and this appeal is dismissed with costs.


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