Skip to content


Sri Murat Ram Janki Birajman Mandir Vs. Gorey Lal and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in118Ind.Cas.233
AppellantSri Murat Ram Janki Birajman Mandir
RespondentGorey Lal and ors.
Excerpt:
agra pre-emption act (xi of 1922), section 7 - bundelkhand land alienation act (ii of 1903), section 16-a--suit by idol for pre-emption of land in bundelkhand, competency of--idol, whether can be member of agricultural tribe. - .....the plaintiff cannot by any stretch of imagination be regarded as a member of an agricultural tribe of bundelkhand. it further follows that under section 7 of the agra pre-emption act he could not have a right of pre-emption conferred upon him under the act if he is not entitled to purchase the property under the bundelkhand land alienation act of 1903. the alienor in this case was a member of an agricultural tribe, and the plaintiff was not entitled to purchase the property from him. he is, therefore, not allowed to sue. it is further clear from section 16-a that without a previous sanction of the collector no person can sue for preemption unless the transferor is not a member of an agricultural tribe or unless the pre-emptor belongs to the same agricultural tribe as the vendor......
Judgment:

1. This is a suit for preemption brought on behalf of an idol in respect of a sale which took place in Bundelkhand. In the first Court no objection was taken that the suit was not maintainable and the claim was decreed. The lower Appellate Court has allowed the objection but has disallowed the defendants their costs because the point had not been taken in the first Court. In our opinion such a question was purely one of law and it was open to the lower Court to take the point and dismiss the suit on the ground that it was not maintainable. The plaintiff cannot by any stretch of imagination be regarded as a member of an agricultural tribe of Bundelkhand. It further follows that under Section 7 of the Agra Pre-emption Act he could not have a right of pre-emption conferred upon him under the Act if he is not entitled to purchase the property under the Bundelkhand Land Alienation Act of 1903. The alienor in this case was a member of an agricultural tribe, and the plaintiff was not entitled to purchase the property from him. He is, therefore, not allowed to sue. It is further clear from Section 16-A that without a previous sanction of the Collector no person can sue for preemption unless the transferor is not a member of an agricultural tribe or unless the pre-emptor belongs to the same agricultural tribe as the vendor. This not being the case here the previous sanction of the Collector was an indispensable requisite. The suit was not maintainable and has been rightly dismissed. The appeal is dismissed with costs including in this Court fees on the higher scale.


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