Amjad Ali and Others vs Mushtaq Ahmad and Another

John Edge, Kt., C.J. and Knox, J.—In our opinion bur brother Burkitt rightly hold that the son of a Muhammadan co-sharer in the village was not, merely in virtue of his birth, a co-sharer, within the meaning of the pre-emptive clause of the wajib-ul-arz. A Muhammadan son does not take a vested interest in ancestral property on his birth, as a Hindu son does. Consequently the order of remand was right. But the Court below should apply the principles expounded by the Full Bench of this Court in Bam Nath v. Badri Narain ILR 19 All. 148. We dismiss this appeal with costs.