Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3.Whether the lower appellate court having held that the civil court has jurisdiction to go into the question of title inspite of the issue of a patta, failed to ascertain the extent of Paimash Nos. 520/1 and 520/3 and also to ascertain how there has been an excess of extent of nearly 8 acres in S.No.254/2?

Exhibit A13 and A14 are the Survey and Settlement Registers in which list of properties taken over by Inam Abolition Act, 1948 has been listed. Apart from the properties listed, their identity was admitted by the defendant in his written statement vide paragraphs 4 and 5 thereof. As regards question No.2, it is well settled that burden of proof loses relevance when both sides have led evidence. Question No. 3 framed by the High Court relates to questions of fact and, in Second Appeal the High Court cannot sit over the findings of fact of the Courts below by re-appreciation of evidence and by re- examining the findings of fact already recorded by the two Courts below. That the disputed land consists of 4 acres out of 11 acres and 99 cents has been admitted by the defendant in his written statement. In paragraphs 4 and 5 of his written statement, the defendant had clearly stated that his interest is in the suit property measuring 4 acres out of the total extent of land measuring 11 acres and 99 cents.

The so called substantial question of law framed by the High Court was answered by the High Court in paragraph 24 of its judgment. This is what the High Court has stated in paragraph 24 of the judgment:-

"The courts below have failed to note that there is clear evidence to show the extent of Paimash Nos. 520/1 and 520/3. the extent of Paimash No.520/1 is 0.140.0 kanis which is equivalent to 1.17 acres, while the extent of Paimash no. 520/3 is 2.0.0 kanis, equivalent to 2.65 acres. Thus the total extent would come to about 3 acres 82 cents. Adding the 4 acres, at best it may come to only about 8 acres."