Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.40 seconds)Radhamoni Debi vs The Collector Of Khulna And Ors. on 24 March, 1900
In this connexion, reference may be made to the case of Doe on the demise of Earl of Egremont v. Pulman [1842] 3 Q.B. 622; and the judgment of the Judicial Committee in the case of Radhamoni Debi v. Collector of Khulna [1900] 27 Cal. 943.
Chalho Singh And Ors. vs Jharo Singh And Ors. on 30 May, 1911
Nor need we emphasise the omission of mention of the tenure in road cess returns which could be admissible only against the maker: Chalho v. Jharo [1911] 39 Cal.
Seshamma Shettati And Ors. vs Chickaya Hegade And Ors. on 14 February, 1902
467; Seshamma v. Chickaya [1890] 19 Mad.
Akimannessa Bibi And Ors. vs Bepin Behari Mitter on 15 August, 1915
2. The title of the defendants rests upon an amalnama alleged to have been executed in favour one Dulal Mridha by Golaknath Ghose on the 24th January 1856. Before we deal with the question of genuineness of this document, it is necessary to refer briefly to two previous litigations between the parties. On the 12th April 1907, the plaintiffs instituted a suit against the defendants for recovery of possession. The defendants set up the amalnama just mentioned. The document was not regarded as genuine by the trial Court which decreed the suit on the 8th January 1908. The defendants appealed to this Court, and alter an order of remand for further enquiry, the appeal was finally heard on the 10th August 1915 when a Division Bench allowed the plaintiffs to withdraw from the suit with liberty reserved to institute a fresh suit only in respect of a portion of the subject matter in controversy. The judgment of this Court has found its way into the reports Akimannessa v. Bepin Behari [1913] 22 C.L.J. 397. During the pendency of the appeal in this Court, on the 24th April 1911, the defendants instituted a suit against the present plaintiff for recovery of possession of a, large tract of land. The amalnama of the 24th January 1856 was again produced in evidence and met with the same treatment as in the previous litigation. The trial Court dismissed the suit on the 18th March 1912. An appeal was preferred to this Court but was unsuccessful. The decree of the primary Court was affirmed on the 5th July 1916, on the ground that the plaintiffs had not established that they had a subsisting title to the lands in dispute. During the pendency of the appeal to this Court, the present suit was instituted on the 10th November 1915; as already stated the trial Court has given the plaintiffs a decree on the 28th February 1920.
Rai Charan Shar Mazumdar vs The Administrator General Of Bengal on 11 May, 1909
In that view, a question would have arisen whether the defendants were entitled to the benefit of the principle enunciated in a long series of decisions of this Court from which we have no desire to depart: Rai Charan v. Administrator-General [1909] 36 Cal.
Purna Chandra Sarbajna And Ors. vs Rasik Chandra Chakrabarti And Ors. on 23 July, 1910
856; Chandrakant v. Ram Nath [1910] 11 C.L.J. 591; Rasheswari v. Saurendra [1909] 11 C.L.J 601; Zeanulla v. Sukhiannessa [1910] 11 C.L.J. 605; Sarip v. Aftab [1910] 13 C.L.J. 115; Purna v. Rasik [1910] 13 C.L.J. 119; Ashutosh v. Joy Lal [1912] 17 C.L.J. 50; Godai v. Aminuddi [1913] 18 CLJ 509; Dwijendra v. Aftab [1916] 25 C.L.J. 53; Udai v Katyayini A.I.R. 1922 Cal.
Maidin Saiba vs Nagapa And Ors. on 28 November, 1882
467; Maidin v. Nagapa [1882] 7 Bom.
Sontayana Gopala Dasu And Three Ors. vs Inapatalupula Rami And Four Ors. on 21 January, 1921
585 and Sontayana Gopala Dasu v. Inapatalupala Rami A.I.R. 1921 Mad. 410. There can be no room for doubt that the defendants have asserted the existence of the tenures now in dispute for a period longer than, 12 years to the knowledge of the plaintiffs and their predecessors-in-interest there is thus no escape from the position that they have acquired the status of a tenure-holder. But although the Subordinate Judge has decided the point in favour of defendants as regards their status as tenure-holder he has declined to give them the benefit of the principle so far as the conditions of their tenure are concerned. The appellants have contended that there is ample evidence on the record to show that the defendants claimed to have held possession not merely as tenure-holders, but as tenure-holders with the incidents and conditions specified in the document of the 24th January 1858. In this view, there is no escape from the position that the defendants have acquired a right to hold the tenure under the conditions mentioned in that document.
Ramuvien vs Veerappudayan And Nine Ors. on 2 January, 1912
In this connection reference has been made to the decision in Ramuvien v. Veerappudayan [1912] 37 Mad. 455, where the language of Section 90 was interpreted and the practice to be followed in cases of this description explained We are of opinion, however, that the defendants have not really been prejudiced by the course which was adopted by the Subordinate Judge. There is nothing to indicate that they had evidence at their disposal which would have enabled to establish the execution of the document. At this distance of time it is improbable that a direct evidence should be forthcoming of the actual execution of the document. The Subordinate Judge on the other hand, has given weighty reasons why the document should not be regarded as genuine. The document first saw the light on the 23rd July 1907, when it was produced in the first of the two litigations already mentioned; and though the existence of a tenure is mentioned in a conveyance dated the 16th September 1873, this document is not mentioned by date. Indeed, from the description given in the conveyance it is not possible to identify the tenure mentioned 'with that alleged to have been created by this document of the 24th January 1856. Apart from this, we have the important fact that there is no proof of possession in accordance with the amalnama'. It is well settled that mere production of an ancient document, unless supported by some corroborative evidence of acting under it is not entitled to any weight, An ancient deed must be corroborated by evidence of ancient or modern corresponding enjoyment or by other equivalent or explanatory proof; it is then presumed to have constituted part of the actual transfer of property mentioned, because this is the usual course of such transactions; in brief, though absence of proof of possession does not affect its admissibility, it undoubtedly affects the weight to be attached to the document.