Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (1.20 seconds)
Documents citing Jaldhari Mahto And Ors. vs Rajendra Singh And Ors. on 11 March, 1958

Subudhi Padhan vs Raghu Bhuvan on 23 November, 1960

11. Turning now to the second contention of Mr. Panda that the appellate Court having rejected all the documents filed on behalf of the defendant except Ext. D and D/1 should not have found possession with the defendant and negatived the possession of the plaintiff. He relied, for that purpose, on a decision of the Patna High Court Jaldhari Mahato v. Rajendra Singh, reported in AIR 1958 Pat 386. What was held in that case was that the presumption of possession arising from title is not available where the land is capable of actual possession by cultivation or otherwise, and there is no evidence of possession or the evidence adduced is unworthy of credit. But this presumption is available in all cases (1) where the evidence is equally strong and apparently equally well balanced on both sides so that it is difficult to determine where the truth lies; (2) where the evidence on both sides is Weak or unsatisfactory, but not value-less or wholly incredible: (3) where the land is of such a peculiar nature that the evidence of actual user and enjoyment in the ordinary manner could hardly be, expected, e.g., the lands which are waste, jungle, parti, gora, submersed under water or any other kind of land incapable of cultivation.
Orissa High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Rambilas Mahto And Ors. vs Babu Durga Bijai Prasad Singh And Ors. on 2 December, 1964

In view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Jaldhari Matho v. Rajendra Singh, 1958 BLJR 258: (AIR 1958 Pat 386) (FB), the learned Single Judge pointed out that the proper article of the Limitation Act which was applicable to the present suit was Article 144, and not Article 142. Accordingly, the onus lay upon the defendants to establish the tenancy rights which they were claiming in the disputed holdings. The learned Judge has then considered the entire oral and documentary evidence adduced in the case on the question of possession and summed up his conclusions in the following terms:
Patna High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Balaram Bhoi And Anr. vs Malati Bewa And Ors. on 12 June, 1974

The presumption of possession arising from title is not available where the land is capable of actual possession by cultivation or otherwise, and there is no evidence of possession or the evidence adduced is un- worthy of credit. But this presumption is available in all cases (1) where the evidence is equally strong and apparently equally well balanced on both sides so that it is difficult to determine where the truth lies; (2) where the evidence on both sides is weak or unsatisfactory, but not valueless or wholly incredible; (3) where the land is of such a peculiar nature that the evidence of actual user and enjoyment in the ordinary manner could hardly be expected e. g., lands which are waste, jungle, parti, gora, submerged under water or any other kind of land incapable of cultivation. To this extent the general rule laid down by the Full Bench in the case of Shiva Prasad Singh, AIR 1921 Pat 237 (FB) must be deemed to be modified, and in such cases the plaintiff can succeed on the strength of this title alone."
Orissa High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Tapesar Raut And Ors. vs Ram Jatan And Ors. on 12 September, 1961

7. With regard to the merits of the case it was conceded by the learned Government Advocate that the view of law expressed by the learned Single Judge is not consistent with the decision of a Full Bench of this High Court in Jaldhari Mahto v. Rajendra Singh, AIR 1958 Pat 386). It was pointed out by the Full Bench, in circumstances similar to those in the present case, that the proper Article to apply was Article 144 of the Limitation Act and the onus lay on the defendant to grove that he had acquired the limited right of Shikmi tenant by adverse possession. In our opinion the decision of the Full Bench in AIR 1958 Pat 386 (FB) applies to the present case, and in view of the principle laid down in that decision we hold that this appeal should be allowed and the decision of the learned Single judge, dated the 28th May, 1956, should be set aside and the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court dated the 8th September, 1951, should be restored.
Patna High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 4 - V Ramaswami - Full Document

Musammat Murti Dussadhin And Others vs Surajdeo Singh And Others on 11 August, 1964

The Munsif held that the plaintiff settled these lands with the defendants some 28 years ago. On the question of possession he held that ever since the settlement, the defendants have been in possession and cultivating the lands, and that the plaintiff since after the settlement has not been in possession. He concluded that the plaintiff having been out of possession for more than 12 years was not entitled to possession. He, in consequence, dismissed the suit with costs. The plaintiff appealed and succeeded before the Appellate Court. The Additional Sub-Judge was of the view that "the onus was on the defendants to prove that they were raiyats of the lands and that they had acquired occupancy rights in these lands and unless they succeeded in proving these, they could not successfully resist the plaintiff's suit." After going through the evidence, he came to the conclusion that the defendants bad not been able to prove their case about settlement and possession. Five defendants appealed to the High Court. It was contended before the High Court on behalf of the defendants that the Appellate Court had wrongly put the onus on the defendants, but the High Court, relying on Jaldhari v. Rajendra Singh(1) did not accede to this contention. The High Court held that the title of the plaintiff had been admitted by the defendants and their case of settlement and possession for 12 years had been rejected by the Appellate Court. The plaintiff had never alleged that he had been dispossessed. The learned Judge further observed as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 1 - S M Sikri - Full Document

K.Harischandra Holla vs Unknown on 30 January, 2015

" 13. The position will be different where the plaintiff does not admit the defendant to R.S.A No.339 of 2015 20 be a tenant of his and sues as a proprietor to recover the land and the defendant sets up a tenancy right under the plaintiff. In such a case the plaintiff has not to prove anything, because the admitted paramount title carries with it a presumption that the plaintiff is entitled to hold and possess the land and therefore the person seeking to defeat that right and claiming to hold under him must establish the right so asserted by him see AIR. 1958 Pat. 386 F B. Jaldhari Mahto v. Rajendra Singh.
Kerala High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - A Hariprasad - Full Document

Dayaram And Ors vs State Of Raj (Cooperative) And Or on 1 March, 2016

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, this court finds that petitioners filed Writ Petition No.6614/1998 along-with other similarly situated persons, titled Jaldhari and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, which was dismissed vide order dated 25.09.2001 holding that the license of erstwhile Todabhim Rural Cooperative Society was cancelled on 20.02.1995, which was prior to judgment of this court in earlier writ petitions and the prayer to absorb them in the service of RSEB was declined. Some of petitioners therein filed Special Appeal but present petitioners did not file any appeal. Although their appeal was allowed ten years thereafter vide judgment dated 18.11.2010. Admittedly, the petitioners were discontinued from service in the year 1996 and that for last twenty years they are not working with respondents. Their claim for absorption and regularization, therefore, cannot be considered, particularly when four petitioners, out of five, have already attained age of 59 years. Besides, their writ petition suffers from enormous delay and laches and is inspired only by reason of judgment dated 18.11.2010 of this court in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.309/2002, which was allowed . That appeal itself remained pending for as long as 10 years. In the facts of this case, no mandamus can be issued at this belated stage in favour of the petitioners.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - M Rafiq - Full Document
1