1906 (3) TMI 1

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Sir Robert Finlay, K.C., and Mr. DeGruyther For the Respondents: Mr. Jardine, K.C., and Mr. W.C. Bonnerjee JUDGMENT Lord Robertson 1. This dispute relates to 497 bighas of land, adjacent to the Brahmaputra river. This land was, at the date of the plaint, viz., 3rd October 1893, in the possession of the first Respondent (who will be referred to as "the Respondent "), and the suit was in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... period of limitation being so narrow (one year) the question of onus is important; and their Lordships adhere to the principle stated in the Privy Council case cited by the learned Judge in the High Court [ Mohima Chundar Mozoomdar v. Mohesh Chundar Neogi L.R. 16 IndAp 23 (1888)], and hold that it is for the Appellant, as Plaintiff in a suit of ejectment, to prove possession prior to the disposse....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t seriously invalidates its authority when it is remembered that the case of the Appellant is that, in a specified month of a specified year, she was forcibly dispossessed under circumstances graphically described. If her averments be true, the Appellant was in possession within the period of limitation, and her case is made out. That they are true the Subordinate Judge has held. Yet of this cruci....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... measurements of which, are placed beyond doubt. The plan of 1873 undoubtedly makes the lands in dispute fall within the Respondent's property. But it is a plan of a very large territory; it is, on the face of it, open to the criticism expressed by the Subordinate Judge; and it was not prepared with the same concentrated attention to this specific ground which necessarily characterises the Tha....