https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199844 The Privy Council ruled in favor of the Appellant in a land possession dispute, emphasizing the burden of proof in an ejectment suit. The Appellant's historical decrees dating back to 1835 and 1859 supported their title claim, while the Respondent's possession defense lacked sufficient evidence. The lower court judgment in favor of the Appellant was overturned by the High Court due to failure to address crucial issues, leading the Privy Council to reverse the High Court's decision. The Appellant's continuous possession evidence and discrepancies in land maps favored their case, resulting in the restoration of the Subordinate Judge's decree and costs awarded against the Respondent. en-us Wed, 21 Mar 1906 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 14 Mar 2018 11:14:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199844 The Privy Council ruled in favor of the Appellant in a land possession dispute, emphasizing the burden of proof in an ejectment suit. The Appellant's historical decrees dating back to 1835 and 1859 supported their title claim, while the Respondent's possession defense lacked sufficient evidence. The lower court judgment in favor of the Appellant was overturned by the High Court due to failure to address crucial issues, leading the Privy Council to reverse the High Court's decision. The Appellant's continuous possession evidence and discrepancies in land maps favored their case, resulting in the restoration of the Subordinate Judge's decree and costs awarded against the Respondent. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 21 Mar 1906 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199844