Jagan Bhagat vs Sheikh Arjani Mandal

Reginald Roe, J.—This appeal arises from a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Godda dismissing the plaintiffs'' claim to pre-empt the property in suit. The plaintiffs are co-sharers to the extent of two-thirds of this property, the remaining one-third has been sold to the defendants. The sale is dated the 10th June 1913.

The plaintiffs'' case is that they heard first of the sale on the 8th August 1913 and forthwith performed the necessary Muhammadan ceremonies by crying aloud in the presence of witnesses that they were the buyers of the property and by going to the spot and inviting the attention of the vendors to the fact that they claimed pre eruption.

There are three main issues before us:--

Firstly, whether the law of pre-emption prevails in the Sontal Parganas at all among Hindus;

Secondly.--Whether the plaintiffs made any claim to pre-empt on the 8th August; and

Thirdly,--Whether the 8th of August was as they state the date on which they first heard of the sale.

I do not think it necessary to go into the first and second questions, for the reason that it is patent on the record that the 8th of August was not the date on which the plaintiffs heard that the property had been sold to the defendants. It is proved beyond possible doubt that the defendants entered into possession of the property in June. It is idle to suppose that the plaintiffs would not have received information of this entry into possession earlier than August. Moreover, the plaintiffs themselves betray their case in the most disingenuous way. They were asked from whom they got the information as to the manner in which the talab mowasibat should be performed and said "about two or three days before performing the ceremony, we sent a man to Bhagalpore and he there found out about the ceremony from a Pleader at Bhagalpore." The inference is obvious that they heard of these sales sometime in July, if not earlier, and sent a man into Bhagalpore for advice as to what to do in the matter, and received the advice that they should go through the ceremonies necessary to pre-emption; they proceeded to go through those ceremonies at the earliest possible opportunity, after the return of their messenger from Bhagalpore. In my view that date was too late for the performance of the ceremonies. Mr. Naresh Chandra Sinha suggests that the date of the performance is an equitable question only and that if the ceremonies are performed within a reasonable time, they are good ceremonies and should create a right of pre emption. With that point of view I am not in agreement at all. A right to preemption is based entirely upon the Muhammadan Law. It has been accepted by Hindus in certain districts in consequence of their close contact with Muhammadans in those districts. To create a right of pre-emption it is necessary that the Muhammadan ceremonies be preformed immediately upon hearing of the sale.

I would dismiss the appeal with costs.

Chapman, J.

I agree.