CHINMOYEE DEBI Vs. SARASWATI DEBI
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Click here to view full judgement.
P.N. Mookerjee, J. -
(1.) In this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the judgment of our learned brother S.K. Dutta J., the only point which arises for consideration is whether the three Courts below were justified in finding title in favour of the Plaintiff Respondent with regard to the dispute land.
(2.) The Plaintiff claimed title to the same as a tenant. In support of her claim of tenancy, she produced an amalnama and also two rent receipts apart from oral evidence. The settlement record was against the Plaintiff's claim, as therein the Defendants' names were recorded. The first two Courts, upon a consideration of the evidence, refused to accept the Defendants' story of settlement of the disputed land with them by the landlord and refused to rely on 'the evidence, including documentary evidence in the shape of rent receipts, adduced by the Defendants in support of their said claim. They preferred on the point the Plaintiff's evidence of possession and also of payment of rent under the two receipts, referred to hereinbefore, and further held that, although the amalnama was inadmissible in evidence to prove a lease, it not being registered, although purporting to create a present demise, it was admissible for proving the collateral facts of the Plaintiff's entry into possession of the disputed land and also the nature and character of such possession. It was further held by them that the rent receipts, referred to hereinbefore, produced by the Plaintiff, were enough to show a relationship of landlord and tenant between the Plaintiff and her landlords, who are admitted owners of the disputed land, by payment' and receipt of rent. In support of their above conclusions, the Courts below relied upon the decisions of the Judicial Committee in N. Varada Pillai v/s. Jeevarathanammal, (1919) 24 C.W.N. 346, J.C. Galstaun v/s. Prafulla Kumar De, (1932) 36 C.W.N. 583, Jagannath Marwari v/s. Sm. Chandni Bibi, (1921) 26 C.W.N. 65 and Abdulla Khan v/s. Mahomed Maqbul Hussain : A.I.R. 1923 All. 603.
(3.) The Courts below also held that, in view of the above, the converse presumption arising from the settlement record must be held to be rebutted and the said entries should be held to have been made without foundation. Reliance on this part of the case was placed by the Courts below on the decision of this Court, reported in Rai Kiran Chandra Roy Bahadur v/s. Srinath Chakravarty, (1926) 31 C.W.N. 135;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.