IMAMUDDIN Vs. MOHDRAISUL ISLAM HASHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for pre-emption under the Mahomedan law. The main plea raised by the defendants which has prevailed with the Courts below is that according to the plaintiff's own evidence the second demand was not performed according to law.

(2.) It appears that the plaintiff heard of the sale from one Banwari Lal and made his first demand there and then. He then took Banwarilal with him to the vendee who was on the premises and made the second demand to the vendee in the presence of Banwari Lal. and a servant of the vendee who was present there at the time. The plaintiff had not brought this witness with him as he had brought Banwarilal. The plaintiff's statement shows that although in making the second demand he referred to the first demand having been made by him promptly, he did not charse them (the witnesses) to bear witness to the demand.

(3.) The plaintiff hag coma up in appeal to this Court and on his behalf it is contended that the omission to ask the witnesses to bear witness was not fatal. We reserved our judgment in order to consider some of the original authorities.