Skip to content


Bhagtu Singh Vs. Raghu Nath Sahai and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1Ind.Cas.571
AppellantBhagtu Singh
RespondentRaghu Nath Sahai and ors.
Cases ReferredSher Bahadur Sahu v. M.H. Mackenzie
Excerpt:
evidence - admission in kabuliat as to character of land--admissibility--estoppel--bengal tenancy act (viii of 1885), section 120(3). - .....defendants in favour of the plaintiffs.3. a question has arisen as to whether the admission in the kabuliat is evidence quantum valeat.4. the lower appellate court has discussed the previous cases on this subject. one of these cases is masudan singh v. goodar nath pandey 1 c.l.j. 456. in that case the contention was not whether the admission was admissible as evidence but whether such admission operated as an estoppel. the learned judges expressed a doubt on the question. but we are of opinion that no admission operates as an estoppel except under very peculiar circumstances. an admission is evidence though it may or may not be a strong piece of evidence. the learned judges were, however, undoubtedly of opinion that an admission in a kabuliat as to the land being zerait is evidence. the.....
Judgment:

1. The question raised in this appeal is whether the land held by the defendants is zerait or raiyati.

2. The Lower Appellate Court has come to the conclusion that the land is zerait and one of the pieces of evidence on which that Court has relied is an admission made in a kabuliat executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiffs.

3. A question has arisen as to whether the admission in the kabuliat is evidence quantum valeat.

4. The Lower Appellate Court has discussed the previous cases on this subject. One of these cases is Masudan Singh v. Goodar Nath Pandey 1 C.L.J. 456. In that case the contention was not whether the admission was admissible as evidence but whether such admission operated as an estoppel. The learned Judges expressed a doubt on the question. But we are of opinion that no admission operates as an estoppel except under very peculiar circumstances. An admission is evidence though it may or may not be a strong piece of evidence. The learned Judges were, however, undoubtedly of opinion that an admission in a kabuliat as to the land being zerait is evidence. The same view was taken by us in one of the unreported cases.

5. A conflict is pointed out by the learned Vakil for the appellant in the observations of Bannerji, J. in Sher Bahadur Sahu v. M.H. Mackenzie 7 C.W.N. 400. That case, however, is clearly distinguishable. A case decided by a Settlement Officer is distinguishable from a case decided by a Civil Court. The last sub-section of Section 120 only directs that a Court dealing with a question of right to private land should have regard to the rules laid down in Section 120. The sub-section does not exclude evidence which under the Evidence Act is otherwise admissible.

6. The question of probative force is a question for the Court dealing with facts. All that we hold is that an admission in a kabuliat as to the character of laud is relevant evidence.

7. The Lower Appellate Court has relied not only upon the admission but also upon other evidence. We cannot, therefore, interfere in second appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs.


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