Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Murli Tewari Vs. Mohammad Idris and ors.

Murli Tewari vs Mohammad Idris and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Dec 19, 1929
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/459898

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Allahabad
Decided On
Subject
Property

Case Summary

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

-

Key legal issue
Property

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Murli Tewari

Respondent

Mohammad Idris and ors.

Legal References

Reported In
AIR1930All312; 122Ind.Cas.595

Excerpt

- 1. this is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. the defendants had acquired under a deed of gift a share in the same mahal but in another khata khewat. the plaintiff is a cosharer with the vendor in the same khata khewat in which the property sold is situated. the courts below have held that a khata khewat cannot be taken to be a subdivision of a mahal within the meaning of section 12, clause 2, pre-emption act. in our opinion they are wrong. the khewat shows that there are separate khatas assigned to separate groups of co-sharers which have specific areas fixed and on which government revenue is separately assessed. there cannot be the least doubt that they are smaller sub-divisions of the same mahal. the plaintiff being a co-sharer in a smaller subdivision has undoubtedly preference over the defendants. we accordingly allow this appeal and setting aside the decree of the lower appellate court remand the case to that court under order 41, rule 23 for the determination of the issues that have remained undecided and for disposal according to law.

Full Judgment

1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. The defendants had acquired under a deed of gift a share in the same mahal but in another khata khewat. The plaintiff is a cosharer with the vendor in the same khata khewat in which the property sold is situated. The Courts below have held that a khata khewat cannot be taken to be a subdivision of a mahal within the meaning of Section 12, Clause 2, Pre-emption Act. In our opinion they are wrong. The khewat shows that there are separate khatas assigned to separate groups of co-sharers which have specific areas fixed and on which Government revenue is separately assessed. There cannot be the least doubt that they are smaller sub-divisions of the same mahal. The plaintiff being a co-sharer in a smaller subdivision has undoubtedly preference over the defendants. We accordingly allow this appeal and setting aside the decree of the lower appellate Court remand the case to that Court under Order 41, Rule 23 for the determination of the issues that have remained undecided and for disposal according to law.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial