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.

Bansi Vs. Ram Baran and ors.

Bansi vs Ram Baran and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Jul 26, 1922
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/483664

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
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Civil

Case Summary

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

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...

Key legal issue
Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Bansi

Respondent

Ram Baran and ors.

Legal References

Reported In
AIR1923All150; 75Ind.Cas.751

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.

Full 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.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial