Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.26 seconds)The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Kumar Raj Krishna Prosad Lal Singh Deo vs Barabani Coal Concern Ltd. And Ors. on 20 July, 1934
The Judicial
Committee in Kumar Krishna Prasad Lal Singha Deo v. Baraboni Coal Concern
Ltd.[4], when had occasion to examine the contention based on the words ‘at
the beginning of the tenancy’ in Section 116 of the Evidence Act,
pronounced that they do not give a ground for a person already in
possession of land becoming tenant of another, to contend that there is no
estoppel against his denying his subsequent lessor’s title. Ever since, the
accepted position is that Section 116 of the Evidence Act applies and
estops even a person already in possession as tenant under one landlord
from denying the title of his subsequent landlord when once he acknowledges
him as his landlord by attornment or conduct. Therefore, a tenant of
immovable property under landlord who becomes a tenant under another
landlord by accepting him to be the owner who had derived title from the
former landlord, cannot be permitted to deny the latter’s title, even when
he is sought to be evicted by the latter on a permitted ground.
Anar Devi (Smt) vs Nathu Ram on 13 May, 1994
7. The aforesaid judgment of the High Court is presently under
appeal. We heard Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta, learned Advocate in support of the
quotation and Mr. Ujjal Banerjee, learned Advocate for the respondents.
Relying on the decision of this Court in Anar Devi(Smt) v. Nathu Ram[1] it
was submitted by Mr. Gupta, learned Advocate that the defendant was
estopped from questioning the title of the plaintiffs and that the High
Court was in error in allowing the second appeal. Mr. Banerjee, learned
Advocate supported the view taken by the High Court and submitted that no
evidence whatsoever was led to prove ownership of the suit house which was
necessary in view of Section 12(1)(e) of the Act.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 23A in The M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Sriram Pasricha vs Jagannath & Ors on 24 August, 1976
13. This Court in Sri Ram Pasricha v. Jagannath[3], has also ruled that in
a suit for eviction by landlord, the tenant is estopped from questioning
the title of the landlord because of Section 116 of the Act.
1