Skip to content


Narian Khootia Vs. Lokenath Khootia and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1881)ILR7Cal461
AppellantNarian Khootia
RespondentLokenath Khootia and anr.
Excerpt:
alienation - impartible raj--chota nagpore--limitation acts (ix of 187l), schedule ii, clause 127; and (xv of 1877), section 2, and schedule ii clause 127. - .....the facts above set out, and, having gone through the evidence, found that, though there was sufficient proof that the plaintiff was the adopted son of gobind, yet here was no sufficient proof of the plaintiff's title or possession. his lordship then continued.2. if the case, therefore, had rested on the plaintiff's evidence, we must have dismissed the suit, although not upon the grounds relied upon by the deputy commissioner.3. we think, however, that the case n(sic) us be decided upon the admission the defendant no. 1. he admits distinct y (sic) hat a putro putrodik grant was therefore, under section. 2, the plaintiff was entitled to two years from the 1st october 1877 to bring his suit. he is, therefore, in ample time.4. we have some doubt whether, having regard to the fact that.....
Judgment:

Richard Garth, C.J.

1. His lordship here stated the facts above set out, and, having gone through the evidence, found that, though there was sufficient proof that the plaintiff was the adopted son of Gobind, yet here was no sufficient proof of the plaintiff's title or possession. His lordship then continued.

2. If the case, therefore, had rested on the plaintiff's evidence, we must have dismissed the suit, although not upon the grounds relied upon by the Deputy Commissioner.

3. We think, however, that the case n(sic) us be decided upon the admission the defendant No. 1. He admits distinct y (sic) hat a putro putrodik grant was therefore, under Section. 2, the plaintiff was entitled to two years from the 1st October 1877 to bring his suit. He is, therefore, in ample time.

4. We have some doubt whether, having regard to the fact that this is a Mitakshara family, and that the plaintiff and defendant appear to be now the sole male members of it, the plaintiff has not a right to a larger share than he claims; but as he has abstained from giving the Court any information, we can only make a declaration, that he is entitled to hold the five villages jointly with the defendant No 1 and any other persons who may be entitled under the original grant, provided that the share to which he is entitled does not exceed one-third of that property.

5. The appellant will be entitled to his costs from the defendant No. 1, in both Courts.


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