Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.23 seconds)Section 97 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 91 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Shailendranath Mitra vs Girijabhushan Mukherji on 28 July, 1930
That was the view taken by a Bench in Shailendranath Mitra v. Girijabhushan Mukherji, ILR 58 Cal 686: (AIR 1931 Cal 596). That is to say, the real intention of the parties has to be gathered not merely from what ex facie is set out in the document in question but also from extrinsic evidence of user, that is to say, the evidence as to how much was taken delivery of by the auction purchaser, how much was in his actual possession and enjoyment and how much, if any, was in the possession of the original owner against whom the decree-holders sought to levy execution.
Subbayya Chakiliyan vs Maniam Muttiah Goundan And Anr. on 22 November, 1923
7. Sri Sastry argued that there was no difference; and that the rule equally applied to the sale certificates issued by the Court and he cited a Bench decision of the Madras High Court; Subbayya Chakilivan v. Muttiah Goundan, 78 Ind Cas 414 : (AIR 1924 Mad 493). In the said case the question was directly raised before the Bench as to what exactly was the land purchased in Court auction which described the land as lying within specific boundaries and by extent when there was variation between the two. In the course of the judgment, the learned Judges observed that the rule of interpretation was that boundaries must prevail as against the measurements. The learned Judges also observed that there was no reason to suppose that, when the judgment-
1