Skip to content


Sital Prasad Vs. Badri Prasad - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1923All53; 69Ind.Cas.647
AppellantSital Prasad
RespondentBadri Prasad
Excerpt:
evidence act (i of 1872), sections 92, 93 116 - land-lord and tenant--lease not sufficiently descriptive of property leased--extraneous evidence, whether may be referred to--lessee already in possession at date of execution of lease--attornment--denial of landlord's title--estoppel. - - in our opinion he is clearly estopped. whatever may have been' the nature of his user of the land in question before the lease was executed, he clearly attorned to the plaintiff when ha executed the lease.1. the first point taken in this appeal is that the lower court had no right to determine the question as to whether the defendant-appellant was a tenant of the land in suit on evidence other than the evidence afforded by the defendant's lease. we are of opinion that the lower courts ware right in considering the correspondence that passe] between the parties as a whole in order to determine the question.2. the next point that arises is, whether the defendant is estopped from denying the plaintiff's title. in our opinion he is clearly estopped. whatever may have been' the nature of his user of the land in question before the lease was executed, he clearly attorned to the plaintiff when ha executed the lease. in these circumstances the decree must stand. we dismiss this appeal with costs.
Judgment:

1. The first point taken in this appeal is that the lower Court had no right to determine the Question as to whether the defendant-appellant was a tenant of the land in suit on evidence other than the evidence afforded by the defendant's lease. We are of opinion that the lower Courts ware right in considering the correspondence that passe] between the parties as a whole in order to determine the question.

2. The next point that arises is, whether the defendant is estopped from denying the plaintiff's title. In our opinion he is clearly estopped. Whatever may have been' the nature of his user of the land in question before the lease was executed, he clearly attorned to the plaintiff when ha executed the lease. In these circumstances the decree must stand. We dismiss this appeal with costs.


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