Skip to content


Bapuji Narayan Chitnis Vs. Bhagvant Balwant Chitnis - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberSecond Appeal No. 1068 of 1916
Judge
Reported inAIR1918Bom153(1); (1918)20BOMLR346; 45Ind.Cas.550
AppellantBapuji Narayan Chitnis
RespondentBhagvant Balwant Chitnis
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Excerpt:
ejectment suit-proof of title-burden of proof.;in a suit in ejcetment, the plaintiff must prove good title : there is no onus on the defendant to prove title relatively good or bad at all.;where the plaintiff, in an ejectment suit, fails to prove title, fact that he was once in possession within twelve years of suit does not throw the onus of proving good title on the defendant. - indian succession act (39 of 1925), section 63: [s.b. sinha & cyriac joseph, jj] will validity - deceased, was a very wealthy person - he floated several companies - he left behind his daughters, s and j - he was suffering from various diseases including some neurological ones - for his treatment, he used to frequently visit united states of america accompanied by his wife and daughter - by reason of a will, he..........the fact that they were once in possession within twelve years of suit throws the onus of proving good title on the defendants. doubtless there is some case-law authority which might be construed into supporting such a proposition. we, however, prefer to follow the simple jaw established ever since the english courts settled any principles of law at all that in a suit in ejectment the plaintiff must prove good title and that there is no onus on the defendant to prove title relatively good or bad at all. here the plaintiffs have attempted to prove title and have proved some years' possession, but it needs twelve full years to make title. both the courts have found that the plaintiffs have no title. it is not disputed that that finding of fact is binding upon us, and we are unable to see.....
Judgment:

Beaman, J.

1. The point taken before us is that although the plaintiffs have been hold by both the Courts not to have proved any title, still the fact that they were once in possession within twelve years of suit throws the onus of proving good title on the defendants. Doubtless there is some case-law authority which might be construed into supporting such a proposition. We, however, prefer to follow the simple Jaw established ever since the English Courts settled any principles of law at all that in a suit in ejectment the plaintiff must prove good title and that there is no onus on the defendant to prove title relatively good or bad at all. Here the plaintiffs have attempted to prove title and have proved some years' possession, But it needs twelve full years to make title. Both the Courts have found that the plaintiffs have no title. It is not disputed that that finding of fact is binding upon us, and we are unable to see how in the face of it any relief can be decreed to the plaintiffs in this from of action.

2. We must, therefore, dismiss the appeal with all costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //