Skip to content


Trimbak Narayan Pujari Vs. Damu Bhau Sali - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case Number Second Appeal No. 165 of 1923
Judge
Reported inAIR1925Bom430; (1925)27BOMLR656; 95Ind.Cas.881
AppellantTrimbak Narayan Pujari
RespondentDamu Bhau Sali
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Excerpt:
land revenue code (bom. act v of 1879) - city survey-sanad, grant of-sanad confers no title.;there is nothing in the bombay land revenue code which entitles a person, who gets a sanad at the city survey on his exparte application, to turn out a person in possession of the land, unless he shows that he has a better title. - - 1. the plaintiff failed to prove his title. it has been argued that because he got his name entered in the city survey as the owner of the land in dispute and obtained a sanad, the court is bound to consider him aa the presumptive owner of the land, and that the defendant was bound to show some better title in order to defeat the plaintiff's claim but there is nothing in the bombay land revenue code which justifies us in saying that a person who gets a sanad at the.....norman macleod, kt., c.j.1. the plaintiff failed to prove his title. it has been argued that because he got his name entered in the city survey as the owner of the land in dispute and obtained a sanad, the court is bound to consider him aa the presumptive owner of the land, and that the defendant was bound to show some better title in order to defeat the plaintiff's claim but there is nothing in the bombay land revenue code which justifies us in saying that a person who gets a sanad at the city survey on his ex parte application, is entitled to turn out the person in possession of the land, unless he shows that he has a better title. the appeal is dismissed with costs.
Judgment:

Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.

1. The plaintiff failed to prove his title. It has been argued that because he got his name entered in the City Survey as the owner of the land in dispute and obtained a sanad, the Court is bound to consider him aa the presumptive owner of the land, and that the defendant was bound to show some better title in order to defeat the plaintiff's claim But there is nothing in the Bombay Land Revenue Code which justifies us in saying that a person who gets a sanad at the City Survey on his ex parte application, is entitled to turn out the person in possession of the land, unless he shows that he has a better title. The appeal is dismissed with costs.


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