Skip to content


Sreemutty Taramoni Chaudhurani and ors. Vs. Charu Chandra Chadnhuri and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in64Ind.Cas.334
AppellantSreemutty Taramoni Chaudhurani and ors.
RespondentCharu Chandra Chadnhuri and ors.
Excerpt:
evidence act (i of 1872), section 17 - admission by predecessor in-interest--admissibility in evidence. - .....been compiled by babu haranath chaudhuri, the son of the plaintiff taramoni chaudhurani. the first book was produced on behalf of the defendants to show that the standard of measurement was a gaj of 221/2 inches. the plaintiff, on the other hand, produced the second book 'the mental arithmetic to show that the gaj was one of 201/2 inches. the learned district judge, while dealing with the other evidence, referred to those two books and observed that too much importance ought not to be attach to them.3. on second appeal the matter came before teunon and chaudhuri, jj. they were of opinion that the matter should be remanded to the court below for a finding whether haranath, the compiler of the first book, was the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff, so that it could be treated as an.....
Judgment:

1. These appeals arise out of proceedings under Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act and the question involved in the appeals is what is the standard of measure in the village.

2. The lower Appellate Court name to the conclusion upon the evidence that it was a gaj of 221/2 inches. But it referred to certain books, one being The Sherpur Bibarani and the other The Mental Arithmetic, the former of which is said to have been compiled by Babu Haranath Chaudhuri, the son of the plaintiff Taramoni Chaudhurani. The first book was produced on behalf of the defendants to show that the standard of measurement was a gaj of 221/2 inches. The plaintiff, on the other hand, produced the second book 'The Mental Arithmetic to show that the gaj was one of 201/2 inches. The learned District Judge, while dealing with the other evidence, referred to those two books and observed that too much importance ought not to be attach to them.

3. On second appeal the matter came before Teunon and Chaudhuri, JJ. They were of opinion that the matter should be remanded to the Court below for a finding whether Haranath, the compiler of the first book, was the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff, so that it could be treated as an admission of her predecessor in-interest. The Court below has come to the finding that he was.

4. It is contended before us on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant that Haranath had made a gift of the property to the plaintiff in 1882 and the book was compiled in 1872, that is, ten years after, and that as Haranath had no interest in the property at the time when he made the statement in the book, it could not be treated as an admission of the plaintiff's predecessors-in-interest. It appears, however, that the gift made by Haranath was only of the life-interest. The reversionary interest was left in Haranath at the time when he compiled the book; and it appears from the very plaint itself that Haranath's reversionary interest in the property has devolved upon the lady (as trustee) by whom the suits have been brought. That being so, Haranath was the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff, and these appeals must, therefore, be dismissed with costs.


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