Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.41 seconds)
Documents citing Dugappa Chotti vs Vidhia Purna Tirthasami And Anr. on 2 February, 1883

Poddar Plantations Limited vs Smt.Thekkemariveettil Madhavi Amma on 21 March, 2011

In paragraph 13 of Dugappa Chotti's case it is held, "..The tenant is clearly bound to show where his landlord's land was situated, and if he fails to do so, a part of the property with which it was mixed equal to its annual value should be set out and made over to the landlord. If the boundaries can be ascertained, there will be no further difficulty. If they A.S. No.528 of 2000, Cross Objection & C.R.P. No.3400 of 2001 -: 21 :- cannot, it would be desirable to set out the land claimed in some particular direction, so that the different plots included in each description of land may lie together as far as practicable.... For this purpose, the Subordinate Judge should depute a Commissioner to ascertain by local enquiry, as far as practicable, the relative position of the two estates..."
Kerala High Court Cites 44 - Cited by 0 - T Joseph - Full Document

T.M. Ittithayeri Nambudri vs P.C.K. Kanvastri Ithri Amma And Ors. on 23 February, 1912

1. The first question argued is that the Subordinate Judge wrongly disallowed a considerable extent of paddy lards as not included in the demise. It is argued that the onus was on the defendants to point out the lands demised to him and not on the plaintiff to prove what lands he demised and claims to recover. There is absolutely no warrant for this proposition. The case relied on Dugappa Chetti v. Tirthasami 6 M. 263 lends no countenance to it. As pointed out in (hat case, if the tenant destroys the boundaries of the lands he takes possession of from his landlord or otherwise mixes up the lands with other lands in his possession, then the onus of pointing out the lands demised would be shifted to the tenant. This rule does not displace the principle that the plaintiff who wants to recover any land on the ground that it belongs to him must prove his case. In (his case it was not alleged that the tenant so mixed up plaintiff's lands with other lands as to relieve the plaintiff of the onus of proving his case. It is not shown that the Sub-Judge failed to consider any material evidence relating to the identification of the lands.
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1