Skip to content


G. Narayanasawmi Naidu, Receiver Vs. Chintalapati Subbaraju, Minor, by Mother and Guardian, Bangariah - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1912)22MLJ393
AppellantG. Narayanasawmi Naidu, Receiver
RespondentChintalapati Subbaraju, Minor, by Mother and Guardian, Bangariah
Excerpt:
- - 1. we think the subordinate judge was clearly in error in supposing that it was necessary for the plaintiff to prove the cultivation of the 90 acres by the evidence of a witness who actually saw that area under cultivation......to prove the cultivation of the 90 acres by the evidence of a witness who actually saw that area under cultivation. he has also entirely misunderstood the effect which should be given to accounts prepared in the ordinary course by a public officer, as exhibit a has been prepared in this case. there is no reason why exhibit a should not be acted upon as a correct account. it shows that the government officer, after enquiry, found that the 90 acres were cultivated, and it is also proved that the defendant did in fact pay rs. 450, the government water rate on that area. the defendant gives no explanation for this having been paid if the land was not cultivated. he calls no evidence whatever to disprove the cultivation. we set aside the decree of the subordinate judge and restore that.....
Judgment:

1. We think the Subordinate Judge was clearly in error in supposing that it was necessary for the plaintiff to prove the cultivation of the 90 acres by the evidence of a witness who actually saw that area under cultivation. He has also entirely misunderstood the effect which should be given to accounts prepared in the ordinary course by a public officer, as Exhibit A has been prepared in this case. There is no reason why exhibit A should not be acted upon as a correct account. It shows that the Government officer, after enquiry, found that the 90 acres were cultivated, and it is also proved that the defendant did in fact pay Rs. 450, the Government water rate on that area. The defendant gives no explanation for this having been paid if the land was not cultivated. He calls no evidence whatever to disprove the cultivation. We set aside the decree of the Subordinate Judge and restore that of the District Munsif with the modification that the decree amount is payable only out of the assets of the defendant's grandfather with costs in this and in the lower appellate court.


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