Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.20 seconds)
Documents citing Jafar Ahmed And Ors. vs Maharaja Birendra Kishore Manikya ... on 22 December, 1913

Padmanabho Singh vs Arjuna Panigrahi And Ors. on 8 September, 1950

In support of this argument he relied on -- 'Jafar Ahmed v. Birendra Kishore', AIR 1914 Cal 820; -- Birendra Kishore v. Bhoirab Chandra', AIR 1915 Cal 170(1) and -- 'Kesho Pra-sad v. Tribeni Sahay', AIR 1933 Pat 596. If these cases are however carefully scrutinised it will be noticed that they do not deal with acquisition of rent-free title by adverse possession. On the contrary, they refer to cases where a presumption of lost grant can be reasonably made where there has been non-realisation of rent for several years and where the origin of the tenancy is unknown. But in the present case the Inam register shows clearly the origin of the tenancy and it also shows that some Jodi was actually payable to the zamindar. Under these circumstances there can be no question of presuming a lost grant from the mere fact of nonpayment in spite of demand.
Orissa High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Chattra Nath Chowdhury And Ors. vs Babar Ali And Ors. on 6 March, 1924

574 and Jafer Ahmed v. Birendra Kishore Manikya (1913) 22 C.L.J. 126 which are authorities for the proposition that long possession without payment of rent may in certain circumstances justify the inference of rent-free title. An open and adverse assertion by a tenant that the land which he has held is rent-free may, after the lapse of the period of limitation, create a presumption that the tenure has been held without payment of rent even as against the landlord. The tenant may by assertion of adverse title acquire a limited interest in the land which he holds. In the present case all the elements requisite for the conclusion that the tenants are holding this land rent-free for a long time are present and cannot now be questioned; and we cannot say as a matter of law that the Courts below have erred in drawing an inference from these facts. No doubt, as has been laid down by the Judicial Committee in the case above cited, where lands are within the zemindary of the landlord, it was for the tenant to prove the source of the acquisition of his right. But in that case the facts were totally different from those in the present case. In that case the land had been held in ticca from a very long time and the fact that the tenant never paid rent to the ticcadar was held not to affect the zemindar's right.
Calcutta High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Rai Harendra Nath Choudhury vs Amal Kumar Roy Choudhury And Ors. on 14 February, 1936

3. Further, the defendants stated that they never paid rent for this land. The plaintiff purchased the superior putni in 1917. He instituted a rent suit against the defendant in 1925 but was not successful. The question is whether upon these facts the defendants are entitled to claim that the lands in suit are a rent-free tenure. Numerous cases were cited at the Bar, namely Jafar Ahmed v. Birendra Kishore (1913) 22 O L J 126, Bipradas Pal v. Monorama Devi AIR 1919 Cal 922, Jagdeo Narain Singh v. Baldeo Singh AIR 1922 P C 272, Chattra Nath v. Babar Ali and Brojendra Kiahore Roy v. Mohim Chandra . Upon perusal of the reported cases it appears that long possession without payment of rent may justify in particular circumstances an inference of a rent-free tenure. The onus is always on the side of the defendant to establish by satisfactory evidence that the tenure he holds is rent-free, when the landlord has shown that the land is within the revenue paying estate.
Calcutta High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1