Skip to content


Domai Bara Medhi Vs. Kereo Kolita and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in62Ind.Cas.444
AppellantDomai Bara Medhi
RespondentKereo Kolita and ors.
Excerpt:
evidence act (i of 1872), section 65 - evidence, admissibility of--secondary evidence of contents of document, when inadmissible. - .....appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs for recovery of posssession of a certain parcel of land on declaration of title. the case of the defendant was that this parcel of land did originally belong to the plaintiffs, but they or their predesessor in-interest had sold the land to him for a sum of rs. 95. the deed, it appears, was unregistered. it was in the defendant's possession from the date of its execution in march 1911 up to some time in 1912. the defendant does not now produce if, and the learned subordinate judge in the court- of first appeal has found that he has not satisfactorily accounted for this deed ha, therefore, very properly held that secondary evidence as to its contents is inadmissible. his further findings of fact are that the plaintiffs in fact owed.....
Judgment:

1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs for recovery of posssession of a certain parcel of land on declaration of title. The case of the defendant was that this parcel of land did originally belong to the plaintiffs, but they or their predesessor in-interest had sold the land to him for a sum of Rs. 95. The deed, it appears, was unregistered. It was in the defendant's possession from the date of its execution in March 1911 up to some time in 1912. The defendant does not now produce if, and the learned Subordinate Judge in the Court- of first appeal has found that he has not satisfactorily accounted for this deed Ha, therefore, very properly held that secondary evidence as to its contents is inadmissible. His further findings of fact are that the plaintiffs in fact owed a cum of Rs. 1058 to the defendant and that in lieu of payment of interest he was allowed the usufruct of the land.

2. On these findings of fact we see no reason to interfere with the decree made by the Subordinate Judge and dismiss this appeal with costs.


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