BALWANT SINGH Vs. UMRAO SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption. The only point urged is whether the custom of pre-emption existed in tha mahal in suit.

(2.) The property ia dispute is in patti jatan mahal muddlehem. In this mahal muddlehem there is another patti harnam. Now this mahal muddlehem came into existence in a partition held in the village in the year 1893. In the year 1882, there was a settlement in the village called the settlement of Munshi Nasir Ali. At that time there were three pattis in the village. It does not appear that there was any mahal. These pattis were known as patti jatan, patti Brahmanan and patti bhagwan. There were two wajib-ul-arzes. One wajib. ul-arz was for the entire village, Ex. 2.In this wajib-ul-arz, the custom of pre-emption was recorded. There was a separate wajib ul-arz for patti jatan. In this wajib-ul-arz, it was mentioned that the proprietor, who was the sole proprietor of the entire patti, had a right to transfer the property to any one he liked. No specific mention of a right of pre-emption was, however, made. But inference could be drawn that there was no right of pre-emption. Obviously if there was no right of pre-emption in this patti, the entry in wajul-ul-arz, Ex. 2 of the entire village that there was a right of pre emption in the entire village was not wholly correct. There was no separate wajib. ul-arz prepared at the time of the partition of 1893.

(3.) The question for determination is whether after the partition of 19S3 a right of pre-emption would be deemed to prevail in patti jatan, mahal muddlehem. This patti jatan may, for the purpose of this case, be taken to be the same as patti jatan of the previous settlement, although there is no specific evidence to that effect.