Skip to content


Tika Ram Vs. Dubo Shib Lal - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1923All401; 71Ind.Cas.992
AppellantTika Ram
RespondentDubo Shib Lal
Excerpt:
agra tenancy act (ii of 1901), section 201 - record of rights--entry opposed to decision of competent authority--presumption of correctness. - - i cannot understand how the learned judge has omitted to note this very important document, which was clearly mentioned in the judgment of the first court, and has come to an opposite% conclusion. it was upon the interpretation of the words 'shall presume' and has nothing to do with the case like the present one, where notwithstanding an order by a competent authority the entries had not been corrected soon afterwards. the plaintiff-appellant will make good the deficiency of rs. he must make good the deficiency within, a month from this date and after he has done so the decree of this court will be prepared......presume' and has nothing to do with the case like the present one, where notwithstanding an order by a competent authority the entries had not been corrected soon afterwards. in the present case it is admitted that the entries, as they stood in the year 1325 fasli, were according to the order of the collector referred to above. the mere fact that the official concerned waited for more than two years before correcting the entries in accordance with that order does not make the entries as they stood correct. if the order had been carried out promptly, the entries in the years 1323 and 1324 fasli would have been the same as in the year 1325 fasli. i, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the decree of the lower appellate court and restore that of the court of first instance with costs in.....
Judgment:

Gokul Prasad, J.

1. The point raised in this appeal is a very short one. This was a suit for profits for 1323 to 1325 Fasli and the plaintiff claimed profits on a share of 13 1/3 biswansis in an eleven biswa mahal. The defendant's contention with which I am concerned was, that the recorded share of the plaintiff was only one-fourth of 6 biswansis 1-7/33 kachwansis out of 20 biswas in the years 1323 and 1324 Fasli. The First Court, after discussing the whole of the evidence, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was entitled to the extent of the share claimed by him and decreed the claim for Rs. 227-4-3. The defendant went up in appeal, and in discussing the question of the amount of share on which the plaintiff was entitled to his profits the learned Judge has omitted to consider an order passed by the Magistrate and Collector of Pilibhit, dated the 17th of September 1915, that is to say, in the year 1322 Fasli, holding that the plaintiff's separated share was 13 J biswansis in the eleven biswa mahal. I have read this judgment and it does so hold. I cannot understand how the learned Judge has omitted to note this very important document, which was clearly mentioned in the judgment of the First Court, and has come to an opposite% conclusion. Under these circumstances, the finding of the learned Judge in appeal cannot be considered final. On behalf of the respondents my attention was directed to Section 201 of the Tenancy Act and the Full Bench case of Durga Par shad v. Hajari Singh Ind. Cas. 116 : 8 A.L.J. 1025 : 33 A. (sic). That case has no application to the present case. It was upon the interpretation of the words 'shall presume' and has nothing to do with the case like the present one, where notwithstanding an order by a competent authority the entries had not been corrected soon afterwards. In the present case it is admitted that the entries, as they stood in the year 1325 Fasli, were according to the order of the Collector referred to above. The mere fact that the official concerned waited for more than two years before correcting the entries in accordance with that order does not make the entries as they stood correct. If the order had been carried out promptly, the entries in the years 1323 and 1324 Fasli would have been the same as in the year 1325 Fasli. I, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the decree of the lower Appellate Court and restore that of the Court of first instance with costs in all Courts. The plaintiff-appellant will make good the deficiency of Rs. 5-4 due from the respondent, and in case he does it, it will be added to his costs recoverable from the respondent. He must make good the deficiency within, a month from this date and after he has done so the decree of this Court will be prepared.


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