Skip to content


Bansi Vs. Ram Baran and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1923All150; 75Ind.Cas.751
AppellantBansi
RespondentRam Baran and ors.
Excerpt:
custom - pre-emption--wajib-ul-arz, entry presumption as to rebuttal of. - u.p. zamindari abolition & lands reforms act, 1951 [act no. 1/1951]. section 3(4) & u.p. land revenue act, (3 of 1901). sections 14-a (3) & 14; [s.rafat alam, r.k.agarwal & ashok bhushan, jj] expression collector- held, it includes additional collector. powers and functions of collector can be exercised by additional collector under section 198(4) of 1950 act, provided he has been so directed by collector of the district. [1996 aihc 3628 overruled].1. the question in issue is whether the plaintiff claiming pre-emption has proved the existence of a custom of pre-emption in the village in suit. the entries in the wajtb-ul-arzes drawn up at the two settlements of 1833 ana 1860 are prima facie, records of an existing custom. there were at, least three co-sharers in the former year and a number of co-sharers in the latter year. the main contention before us is that this evidence is sufficiently rebutted by a note recorded at the time of the settlement of 1860, to the effect that this village had been waste or desolate up to the year 1829. we do not think this is sufficient to rebut the presumption raised in favour of the plaintiff. we dismiss this appeal with costs.
Judgment:

1. The question in issue is whether the plaintiff claiming pre-emption has proved the existence of a custom of pre-emption in the village in suit. The entries in the wajtb-ul-arzes drawn up at the two Settlements of 1833 ana 1860 are prima facie, records of an existing custom. There were at, least three co-sharers in the former year and a number of co-sharers in the latter year. The main contention before us is that this evidence is sufficiently rebutted by a note recorded at the time of the Settlement of 1860, to the effect that this village had been waste or desolate up to the year 1829. We do not think this is sufficient to rebut the presumption raised in favour of the plaintiff. We dismiss this appeal with costs.


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