appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated numberember 9 1960 of the allahabad high companyrt in second appeal number 2074 of 1944.
it also held that the respondent was the owner of the companytiguous house and had therefore the right to sue.
it was further alleged that even if the existence of custom of pre emption was proved it companyld number be applied to parjoti land i.e. lease hold land .
his case was that there was such a custom of pre emption prevailing in the whole of the city of benaras and therefore he was entitled to pre empt the property sold which was a khandar i.e. a house in ruins .
the trial companyrt framed four issues namely i whether the respondent had a right to sue ii whether the custom of pre emption prevailed in mohalla baradeo in the city of benaras iii whether the vendors and the vendee as residents of calcutta were governed by the custom of pre emption and iv whether the talabs had been performed.
on the question of custom the trial companyrt held that there was a custom of preemption in the locality which was company extensive with mahomedan law of pre emption.
it was further pleaded that as the vendors and the vendee lived in calcutta they were number governed by the custom of pre emption if any prevalent in the city of benaras.
yogeshwar prasad and m. v. goswami for the respondent.
the trial companyrt held that the necessary talabs had been per formed.
p. goyal and sobhag mal jain for the appellants.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by wanchoo c. j. the main question raised in this appeal by special leave is whether parjoti land i.e. a permanent lease hold interest in the city of benaras can be preempted.
the vendee denied that there was any custom of pre emption in the city of benaras and particularly in the mohalla in which the property in dispute was situate.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 2460 of 1966.
the suit was resisted by the vendee whose legal representa tive is the appellant before this companyrt.
it was also denied that the respondent was either shafi i jar or shafi i khalit.
the respondent brought a suit for pre emption of the land in dispute which was sold under a sale deed dated february 6 1942.
the case of the respondent was that he was owner of a house and land to the south of the property sold.
finally the trial companyrt held that the vendors and the vendee were number governed by the custom as they did number live in benaras.
the plaint made the ususal allegation that the necessary talabs had been performed and the respondent was entitled to pre empt the sale.
the performance of talabs was also disputed.
