LexAMBIKA PRASAD THAKUR AND ORS. versus MAHARAJ KUMAR KAMAL SINGH AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
AMBIKA PRASAD THAKUR AND ORS. v. MAHARAJ KUMAR KAMAL SIJliGII AND ORS. September 8, 1965 [K. SuBBA RAo, I. R. MUDHOLKAR AND R. s. BACHAWAT, JJ.] Evidence Act (I of 1872), s. 114--Existence of state of things provcd- lnference of con1iuuity backwards-Wlrerher pertnissible. A B The appellants claimed title to the lands in dispute on the hasis of •· 4( I) of the Bengal Alluvion and Dcluvion Regulation XI of 1825. To estabiish their claim ba~·.:J upon 1he clause, the appclJan·s had to prove C that the lands \\'ere gained by gradual accession from the n .. 'Cc<;s of the river and that the lands were accretions to plots in the possession of the appellao1s or their ancestors. Since the suney records from 1892 to 1909 showed that appcll:in'.s' ancestors held son1c of the frontier p!ots, the High Court was asked to draw the inference that they held those plots during 1845 to 1863 when the lands in dispute accreted. The High Court refused to draw the inference. In appeal to this Court, HELD : If a thing or a state of things is shown to exist, an inference of its continuity \\'ilhin a reasonably proximate time both forwards and, in appropriate cases, hackwards, may be drawn under s. 114, Evidence Act. But it was not safe to assume in the present ca~e that a state of things during 1892 to 1909 existed during 1845 to 1863 since the interval of time was too lnng. (760 HJ Anangamanjari Chowdhrani v. Tripura Sundari Chowdhrani, (1887) L.R. 14 I.A. 101, 110, approved. Observation contra in Manmath Nath Ha/dar, v. Girish Chan- dra Roy, ( 1934) 38 C.W.N. 763, 770 and Hemendra Nath Roy Chowdhury v. Jnendra Prasanna Bhaduri, (1935) 40 C.W.N. 115, 117, disapproved. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 435 to 437 of 1959. Appeals from the judgment and decree dated April 24, 1953 of the Patna High Court in First Appeals Nos. 119, 192 and 189 D E y of 1948 respectively. G S. T. Desai, U. P. Singh and D. Goburdhan, for the appellants. G. S. Pathak, B. Dutta & K. K. Singh, for the respondents Nos. 2, 3(a), 3(d), 4(a) to 4(c), 5, 6, 7(a), 8 to 14, 15(a) to 15(c), 16, 18 to 20, 21(a), 2l(b), 22, 23, 25 to 32, 33(a), 33(b), 34 to 38, 39(a) to 39(d), 40 to 42, 44, 45, 46(a) to 46(d), 47, 48, 49, 74 to 79 and legal representatives of respondent No. 1 (in C. As. Nos. 435 and 436 of 1959) and respondents Nos. 14 H • A. P. THAKUR v. KAMAL SINGH (Bachawat, J.) 759 A to 16, 18(a), 18(d), 19(a) to 19(c), 21, 23, 25, 26 and legal representatives of respondent No. 1 (in C.A. No. 437 of 1959). Sarjoo Prasad, Kanhaiyaji and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for respon- dent No. 80 (in C.As. Nos. 435 and 436/1959) and respondent No. 1 (in C.A. No. 437 of 1959). B D. P. Singh, for respondent No. 81 (in C.As. Nos. 435 and 436 of 1959). The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Bachawat J. After stating the facts of the case and discussing c the evidence his Lprdship proceeded : ] On the question of title also, the plaintiffs must fail. In the plaint, the basis of their claim of title was (a) occupation of 426 bighas 18 kathas and 9 dhurs of Dubha Taufir by their ancestor Naurang Thakur as occupancy tenant and the record of his rights D in the survey papers of 1892 and (b) the oral arrangement with the Durnraon Raj. The first branch of this claim is obviously in- • correct. The survey papers of 1892 do not record occupancy ten- ancy rights of Naurang Thakur in 426 bighas 18 kathas and 9 dhurs. In the High Court, counsel for the plaintiffs conceded that in the Khasra of 1892-1893 survey the plaintiffs' branch was recor- E ded as tenant for about 19 bighas only. The oral arrangement is not established, and the second branch of this claim also fails. The Subordinate Judge did not examine the basis of the plaintiffs' claim of title. His finding in favour of the plaintiffs' title was based chiefly on (1) oral evidence, (2) depositions of witnesses in previ- ous litigations, (3) possession, ( 4) an admission of the Maharaja. F The oral evidence on the point is not convincing. The claim is not supported by the documentary evidence. The survey papers of 1892, 1895, 1904, 1909 and 1937 do not support the plaintiffs' claim of occupancy rights in the lands in suit. The depositions of witnesses in other litigations do not carry the matter further. The deposition of defendant No. 11, Ram Dass Rai, in Suit No. 217 G of 1911 is of weak evidentiary value. Though admissible against him as an admi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.