RAJA RASH BIHARI LAL SING Vs. NABAYI PADDAR AND OTHERS
LAWS(CAL)-1869-5-21
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on May 10,1869

RAJA RASH BIHARI LAL SING Appellant
VERSUS
NABAYI PADDAR AND OTHERS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) In this case three grounds of special appeal have been urged before us. The first of them is, that the plaintiff having failed to establish the particular title under which be sued, ought not to have had a decree; secondly, that the lower appellate Court was wrong in taking the dakhilas put in by the plaintiff in that Court as evidence, inasmuch as they were neither proved nor admitted; and thirdly, that the oral and other evidence in the case were insufficient to justify the decree pissed. The plaintiff alleged, that upon the Raja whom he made a pro forma defendant in this suit desiring to reclaim a portion of waste land, the plaintiff undertook to do it, and commenced clearing a portion of the land and putting up an embankment, end thereupon the Raja gave him a sanad to hold that land at a quit-rent of two rupees per annum, and also to out and use jungle thereon; not afterwards the principal defendants commenced a dispute with him about this jungle land, and cut down some jungle therein, and dispossessed him of the land on the eastern side of his grant; that he had made a complaint on this subject to the police authorities who referred him to a civil suit, and consequently he sued to recover possession of the land in question, and for damages that he valued at 5 rupees, the land being valued at 15.
(2.) The Munsiff dismissed the suit; but on appeal the Deputy Commissioner, who is also Subordinate Judge, reversed that decision and gave judgment for the plaintiff to the full amount of his suit. It may be observed however that the decree itself only orders the plaintiff to be replaced in possession of the land, being silent as to damages, and also awards him costs.
(3.) The first ground of appeal above mentioned proceeds on the circumstance that the plaintiff did not prove the sanad mentioned in the plaint to the satisfaction of the lower appellate Court; and it is contended that as the sanad itself was not proved, the particular title depending on that sanad must fail, and the suit ought to have been dismissed.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.