Skip to content


Hazari Lal Vs. Abbas Mirza - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1925All360; 86Ind.Cas.595
AppellantHazari Lal
RespondentAbbas Mirza
Excerpt:
pre-emption - wajib-ul-arz, entry in, construction of--relative who is not co-sharer, whether can preempt. - - 2. the point which was raised in both the courts below was that the word 'digar' in this context indicated clearly that it was necessary that the members of the first and second classes should also be co-sharers in the village. it seems to us that the meaning of the wajib-ul-arz is perfectly plain and that no person can claim to pre-empt as a 'bhai haqiqi' or a 'bhai qaribi' unless he has got the further qualification of being a co-sharer in the village......a suit for pre-emption. the plaintiff in the case was a relation of the vendor but was not a co-sharer in the village. on the other hand, the purchaser was a co-sharer in the village but not related to the vendor. both the courts below have field that in spite of the fact that the plaintiff was not a co-sharer, he was entitled to a decree for pre-emption. this decision was arrived at on the language of the wajib-ul-arz 'to which we must now refer. the language of that document appears to us to be quite clear. it provides for a right of pre-emption in three classes of persons, namely. (1) bhai haqiqi (2) bhai qaribi (3) digar hisseddran-i-deh.2. the point which was raised in both the courts below was that the word 'digar' in this context indicated clearly that it was necessary that the.....
Judgment:

1. In our opinion this appeal must be allowed. The decision of the Court below is erroneous. The suit was a suit for pre-emption. The plaintiff in the case was a relation of the vendor but was not a co-sharer in the village. On the other hand, the purchaser was a co-sharer in the village but not related to the vendor. Both the Courts below have field that in spite of the fact that the plaintiff was not a co-sharer, he was entitled to a decree for pre-emption. This decision was arrived at on the language of the wajib-ul-arz 'to which we must now refer. The language of that document appears to us to be quite clear. It provides for a right of pre-emption in three classes of persons, namely. (1) Bhai haqiqi (2) Bhai qaribi (3) Digar hisseddran-i-deh.

2. The point which was raised in both the Courts below was that the word 'Digar' in this context indicated clearly that it was necessary that the members of the first and second classes should also be co-sharers in the village. In other words, mere relationship without possession of some proprietary rights in the village gave no title to pre-empt.

3. The Court of first instance was of opinion that the word 'Digar' did not import this sense into the context. The learned Judge of the lower appellate Court was rather doubtful on this question of interpretation, but he was not prepared to differ from the view taken by the learned Subordinate Judge. It seems to us that the meaning of the wajib-ul-arz is perfectly plain and that no person can claim to pre-empt as a 'Bhai haqiqi' or a 'Bhai qaribi' unless he has got the further qualification of being a co-sharer in the village.

4. Mr. Hamid Hasan has cited to us two oases, Abdul Wahid v. Wilayat Husain (1902) A.W.N. 109 and Ram Din v. Pokhar Singh (1905) 27 All. 553. It is sufficient for us to say that the language of the wajib-ul-arz in those two oases was quite different from the language of the document with which we are now concerned. We allow the appeal, set aside the decree of the Court below and direct that the plaintiff's suit do stand dismissed with costs in all Courts.


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