Skip to content


Kambhampali Venkatasubbiah and ors. Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council Represented by the Collector of Guntur - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in16Ind.Cas.589
AppellantKambhampali Venkatasubbiah and ors.
RespondentThe Secretary of State for India in Council Represented by the Collector of Guntur
Excerpt:
possession, suit for - possession prior to suit--presumption of title--levy of penal assessment by government--onus of proof. - .....land in the public account as poramboke, but from 1876 to 1903, it was treated as plaintiff's inam land. the subordinate judge refers to certain accounts which were deliberately treated as incorrect in 1876 by the officers of government. in a suit for possession, no doubt, the onus is on the plaintiff to prove his title. in this case, the most important evidence of title would be possession. it not being denied that penal assessment was levied, the possession must be treated as having been with the plaintiff at that time and plaintiff is entitled to the same presumption of title in a suit against the secretary of state for india in council as against any one else arising from prior possession. in government or to displace the plaintiff's possession in 1902 without taking into.....
Judgment:

1. We cannot accept the judgment of the Subordinate Judge in this case as satisfactory, He apparently accept's the evidence of the defendant's witnesses, who swear, that the plaintiff never cultivated the land or injoyed it. The plaintiff alleged in his plaint that he was in possession till 1902, that penal assessment was levied from him in that year for 10 years, that is apparently from 1893 to 1902. In 1903, Government made an entry of this land in the public account as Poramboke, but from 1876 to 1903, it was treated as plaintiff's inam land. The Subordinate Judge refers to certain accounts which were deliberately treated as incorrect in 1876 by the officers of Government. In a suit for possession, no doubt, the onus is on the plaintiff to prove his title. In this case, the most important evidence of title would be possession. It not being denied that penal assessment was levied, the possession must be treated as having been with the plaintiff at that time and plaintiff is entitled to the same presumption of title in a suit against the Secretary of State for India in Council as against any one else arising from prior possession. In Government or to displace the plaintiff's possession in 1902 without taking into consideration what is practically admitted, namely, that penal assessment was levied from the plaintiff in 1902. The Subordinate Judge decides the case on hypercritical observations with respect to the oral evidence of the plaintiff. The decree of the Subordinate Judge must be reversed and the appeal remanded for fresh disposal according to law. The costs of this second appeal will abide the result


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