https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298141 A new plea that a suit was barred by limitation under Section 24 of Regulation II of 1819 could not be raised for the first time in appeal where it was not pleaded below, depended on disputed factual inquiries, and would likely require a remand; the plea was therefore rejected. On the land-status issue, the available record, including maps and revenue materials, supported the finding that the disputed lands were re-formation in situ of the permanently settled estate. Because the party withholding the best documentary evidence faced an adverse inference and the presumption of continuity was not rebutted, the revenue assessment under the Bengal Alluvion and Diluvion Act, 1847 could not be sustained, and the decree for the plaintiff was affirmed. en-us Tue, 29 Aug 1922 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 Oct 2021 16:19:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298141 A new plea that a suit was barred by limitation under Section 24 of Regulation II of 1819 could not be raised for the first time in appeal where it was not pleaded below, depended on disputed factual inquiries, and would likely require a remand; the plea was therefore rejected. On the land-status issue, the available record, including maps and revenue materials, supported the finding that the disputed lands were re-formation in situ of the permanently settled estate. Because the party withholding the best documentary evidence faced an adverse inference and the presumption of continuity was not rebutted, the revenue assessment under the Bengal Alluvion and Diluvion Act, 1847 could not be sustained, and the decree for the plaintiff was affirmed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 29 Aug 1922 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298141