Skip to content


D.K. Syed Ibrahim Sahib and ors. Vs. Krishnaswamy Naicker and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in97Ind.Cas.153
AppellantD.K. Syed Ibrahim Sahib and ors.
RespondentKrishnaswamy Naicker and anr.
Excerpt:
madras estates land act (i of 1908), section 27 - extent of holding--presumption--burden of proof. - .....whether the extent to be entered in the patta was properly chies 12-10-11 or chits 10-4-1.3. the district judge (mr. j. gopala rao) gives no proper reasons for reversing the decree of the deputy collector who decided the question at issue upon a careful consideration of the evidence.4. the plaintiffs relied mainly upon the fact that their patta for fasli 1327 showed the extent to be chies 12-10-11 the presumption under section 27, madras estates. land act, was that they held on the same conditions in subsequent faslis. in 1328 no pattas were issued. the defendants did not get the holding measured and rebut this presumption by showing what the actual measurement should be the district judge wrongly cast the onus on the plaintiffs to prove, that so much as 12-10-11 was available for.....
Judgment:

Charles Gordon Spencer, J.

1. The plaintiffs claimed patta for their holding for Fasli 1329 from their landlords.

2. The only point of difference between the parties at the trial was whether the extent to be entered in the patta was properly chies 12-10-11 or chits 10-4-1.

3. The District Judge (Mr. J. Gopala Rao) gives no proper reasons for reversing the decree of the Deputy Collector who decided the question at issue upon a careful consideration of the evidence.

4. The plaintiffs relied mainly upon the fact that their patta for fasli 1327 showed the extent to be chies 12-10-11 The presumption under Section 27, Madras Estates. Land Act, was that they held on the same conditions in subsequent faslis. In 1328 no pattas were issued. The defendants did not get the holding measured and rebut this presumption by showing what the actual measurement should be The District Judge wrongly cast the onus on the plaintiffs to prove, that so much as 12-10-11 was available for plaintiffs' enjoyment without interfering with the occupation, of others. It was for the defendants to show why the extent in plaintiffs' pataa should be reduce.

2. I allow the second appeal, reverse the decree of the District Judge and remand the appeal for re-hearing. If the present District Judge deems it necessary for the proper determination of the matters in dispute between the appellants and the respondents, he may on the application of either party appoint a Commissioner to measure the lands in plaintiffs' holding and report the result of his measurement.

3. The costs of the appeal in this Court will be borne by respondents. Costs in the Courts below will abide and be provided for in the final decree. The appellants here are entitled to a refund of the Court-fee on this second appeal memorandum.


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