https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289351 A tenant cannot deny the landlord's title under Section 116 of the Evidence Act unless a recognised exception is proved, such as termination of the landlord's title, eviction by a paramount title-holder, or attornment to that title-holder under threat of eviction. Here, the notice under Section 7 of the Madras Land Encroachment Act did not result in effective eviction. The landlord's title was asserted before the revenue authority and accepted, while the tenant failed to prove eviction by the Government or attornment through payment of cist or acceptance of patta. The tenant's objections on court-fee and refusal of additional evidence did not displace estoppel, and the landlord's title remained unimpeached. en-us Thu, 05 Apr 1956 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 27 Jul 2020 12:46:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289351 A tenant cannot deny the landlord's title under Section 116 of the Evidence Act unless a recognised exception is proved, such as termination of the landlord's title, eviction by a paramount title-holder, or attornment to that title-holder under threat of eviction. Here, the notice under Section 7 of the Madras Land Encroachment Act did not result in effective eviction. The landlord's title was asserted before the revenue authority and accepted, while the tenant failed to prove eviction by the Government or attornment through payment of cist or acceptance of patta. The tenant's objections on court-fee and refusal of additional evidence did not displace estoppel, and the landlord's title remained unimpeached. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 05 Apr 1956 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289351