Ram Baran and ors. Vs. Bansi

Ram Baran and ors. vs Bansi

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Jul 26, 1922

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/452826

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/452826
Court: Allahabad
Judge: Rafiq and ;Piggott, JJ.
Decided On: Jul 26, 1922
Subject: Civil

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Pre-emption - Custom--Evidence--Wajib-ul-arz. -

Key legal issue: Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ram Baran and ors.

Respondent

Bansi

Legal References

Reported In: (1923)ILR45All185

Excerpt

pre-emption - custom--evidence--wajib-ul-arz. - rafiq and piggott, jj.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 wajib-ul-arzes drawn up at the two settlements of 1833 and 1860 are prima facie records of an existing custom. there were at least three co-sharers in the former year arid 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 i860, to the effect that this r'uage 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.

Full Judgment

Rafiq and Piggott, JJ.

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 wajib-ul-arzes drawn up at the two settlements of 1833 and 1860 are prima facie records of an existing custom. There were at least three co-sharers in the former year arid 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 I860, to the effect that this r'Uage 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.

Same Parties Ram Baran and ors. vs Bansi Same Subject Civil Same Judge Rafiq and ;Piggott, JJ.

Civil