Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.17 seconds)Section 3 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Ma Mi vs Kallander Ammal on 1 November, 1926
The property of Mohan Lal has devolved upon Musammat Kapuri Kunwar by means of a gift." It is to be noted that the Revenue Court says that possession was proved. Actual or constructive possession is undoubtedly proof of acceptance, and in zamindari property, and especially in a case concerning husband and wife, mutation means delivery of possession, and the acts of the husband after mutation are acts on behalf of his wife. See the case of Ma Mi v. Kallander Ammal 100 Ind. Cas. 32 : 25 A.L.J. 69 : A.I.R. 1927 P.C. 22 : (1927) M.W.N. 76 : 38 M.U.T. 53 : 5 R. 7 : 52 M.L.J. 362 : 4 C.W.N. 300 : 6 Bur. L.J. 59 : 45 C.L.J. 268 : 25 L.W. 679 : 29 Bom. L.R. 772 : 31 C.W.N. 625 (P.C.). We note this specially because the learned Judge has been greatly influenced in the decision to which he has come by the fact that after the mutation, the husband performed various acts which the learned Judge thought proved the contention of the defendants that there never had been a real transfer of the property or that the deed of gift was not intended to be operative. Further, when Musammat Kapuri died in 1921, Mohan Lal proceeded to get his name recorded in the revenue papers by mutation proceedings. The papers record that mutation was obtained by way of inheritance, that is, inheritance from his wife, Musammat Kapuri. If the contention of the defendants was correct, there would, of course, have been no necessity for this entry in the revenue papers. The plaintiff and her sister at that time were very young and minors, and Mohan Lal was the guardian, at any rate, of one of them. They were not in a position to protest against or dispute the acts of their father.
1