Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the defendant, as tenant, was estopped from denying the plaintiff's title under Section 116 of the Evidence Act on the basis of a claimed eviction or threatened eviction by a paramount title-holder.
Analysis: The rule of tenant's estoppel admits an exception where the tenant shows that the landlord's title has since come to an end, or that the tenant was evicted by a paramount title-holder, or that under threat of eviction the tenant attorned to such title-holder. In the present case, the notice issued under Section 7 of the Madras Land Encroachment Act did not culminate in an effective eviction. The plaintiff asserted title before the revenue authority, her claim was accepted, and the defendant neither proved eviction by the Government nor attornment to it by payment of cist or acceptance of patta. The defendant's further contention based on court-fee and the refusal to admit additional evidence did not alter the position that the landlord's title had been affirmed and the defendant had failed to establish any exception to estoppel.
Conclusion: The defendant was not entitled to deny the plaintiff's title, and the plea of estoppel against the plaintiff succeeded.