Skip to content


Banwari Lal and anr. Vs. Niadar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1907)ILR29All158
AppellantBanwari Lal and anr.
RespondentNiadar
Cases ReferredMihin Lal v. Badri Prasad
Excerpt:
act (local) no. ii of 1901 (agra tenancy act), section 201 - suit for profits--receipt of profits within 12 years of suit denied--plaintiffs recorded co-sharers--burden of proof. - .....the court of first instance and dismissed the suit. the plaintiffs come here in second appeal. the learned judge observes: 'it was for the plaintiffs to show that they or their predecessors had within twelve years from the institution of the suit collected any profits,' and refers to two rulings. those rulings were anterior to the passing of the tenancy act, 1901. we may also invite his attention to the recent decision of this court in mihin lal v. badri prasad (1905) i.l.r., 27 all., 436. the learned judge has overlooked the provisions of section 201, sub-section (3), of the tenancy act, which provides that if the plaintiff is recorded as having the proprietary right entitling him to institute a suit under chapter xi, the court shall presume that he has that right. 'we gather from the.....
Judgment:

Banerji and Aikman, JJ.

1. This appeal arises out of a suit for profits brought by the plaintiffs, who are co-sharers in the village, against other co-sharers under chapter XI of the Tenancy Act, 1901. The first plea raised in answer to the claim was that the plaintiffs or their predecessors in title had not received profits within 12 years preceding the date of the suit, and that the claim was time barred. The Assistant Collector overruled this plea and decreed a part of the claim against two of the defendants. One of these appealed, and on his appeal the learned Additional Judge set aside the decree of the Court of first instance and dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs come here in second appeal. The learned Judge observes: 'It was for the plaintiffs to show that they or their predecessors had within twelve years from the institution of the suit collected any profits,' and refers to two rulings. Those rulings were anterior to the passing of the Tenancy Act, 1901. We may also invite his attention to the recent decision of this Court in Mihin Lal v. Badri Prasad (1905) I.L.R., 27 All., 436. The learned Judge has overlooked the provisions of Section 201, Sub-section (3), of the Tenancy Act, which provides that if the plaintiff is recorded as having the proprietary right entitling him to institute a suit under chapter XI, the Court shall presume that he has that right. 'We gather from the record that the plaintiffs are recorded co-sharers. Consequently the presumption referred to in the section arises in their favour, and it was not for them to prove, by evidence of receipt of profits within twelve years, that the right subsisted. It was for the defendant to rebut the presumption which the law raised in the, plaintiffs' favour. For the above reasons we allow the appeal; set aside the decree of the Court below, and remand the case to the Court under the provisions of Section 562 of the Code of Civil Procedure, with directions to readmit it to its original number in the register and dispose of it according to law. The appellants will have their costs of this appeal. Other costs will follow the event.


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