https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177274 The plaintiffs failed to establish title to the disputed lands on the basis of occupancy tenancy, oral arrangement, survey records, prior deposition evidence, or the alleged rights under clause (1) of section 4 of Regulation XI of 1825. The Court found that the survey entries and oral testimony did not prove occupancy rights, the earlier depositions had limited evidentiary value because section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was not satisfied, and the alleged Maharaja admission was too weak to create title. It also declined to draw a backward presumption of continuity from later survey records, and a fixed-rent entry under section 50(2) of the Bengal Tenancy Act, 1885 did not by itself prove holding from the Permanent Settlement. en-us Wed, 08 Sep 1965 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 06 Jan 2016 12:25:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177274 The plaintiffs failed to establish title to the disputed lands on the basis of occupancy tenancy, oral arrangement, survey records, prior deposition evidence, or the alleged rights under clause (1) of section 4 of Regulation XI of 1825. The Court found that the survey entries and oral testimony did not prove occupancy rights, the earlier depositions had limited evidentiary value because section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was not satisfied, and the alleged Maharaja admission was too weak to create title. It also declined to draw a backward presumption of continuity from later survey records, and a fixed-rent entry under section 50(2) of the Bengal Tenancy Act, 1885 did not by itself prove holding from the Permanent Settlement. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 08 Sep 1965 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177274