Skip to content


Syed Muhammad YamIn Vs. Babu Ganesh Prasad Singh and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in118Ind.Cas.226
AppellantSyed Muhammad Yamin
RespondentBabu Ganesh Prasad Singh and anr.
Excerpt:
pre-emption - sale to stranger--draft sale-deed shown to lawyer co-sharer--omission of latter to assert his right--estoppel. - 1. this is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. the sale-deed was executed on the 20th of september, 1927, by one muhammad yusuf in favour of one ganesh singh, who was not a co-parcener in the mahal. before the registration of the sale-deed, the draft sale-deed was taken by muhammad yusuf to the plaintiff, who happens to be a lawyer. he read the draft sale deed. he found there the name of ganesh singh, the proposed vendee. he did not assert his own right to purchase the property in his capacity as a co-sharer in preference to a stranger. there does not appear to have been any enmity between yamin and yusuf, and if yamin had at once asserted his right of preemption, his brother most probably would have conveyed the property to him in preference to a stranger. we.....
Judgment:

1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. The sale-deed was executed on the 20th of September, 1927, by one Muhammad Yusuf in favour of one Ganesh Singh, who was not a co-parcener in the mahal. Before the registration of the sale-deed, the draft sale-deed was taken by Muhammad Yusuf to the plaintiff, who happens to be a lawyer. He read the draft sale deed. He found there the name of Ganesh Singh, the proposed vendee. He did not assert his own right to purchase the property in his capacity as a co-sharer in preference to a stranger. There does not appear to have been any enmity between Yamin and Yusuf, and if Yamin had at once asserted his right of preemption, his brother most probably would have conveyed the property to him in preference to a stranger. We think that Yamin was in these circumstances a consenting party to the sale-deed, which was intended to be executed in favour of Ganesh Singh. The Court below has thrown out the plaintiff's suit on the ground that the plaintiff was a consenting party. We consider, on the facts, that the decision of the Court below upon this point is correct. It is unnecessary to go into the other question as to whether or not there was a custom of preemption in the mahal. We dismiss this appeal under Order XLI, Rule 11.


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