1954 (11) TMI 55

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....st Court. The appeal Court however modified the decree by decreeing joint possession of only half the interest in the fields in suit and dismissing the claim for mesne profits. The respondents-defendants filed a cross-objection. The appeal is referred to the Division Bench to consider  Whether S. 4, Limitation Act applies to the cross-objections filed under O. 41 R. 22, Civil P. C. 3. The appellants urged that the cross-objection was barred by time. It was not disputed that the respondents received the memo of appeal on 3-5-1948 and filed a cross-objection on 21-6-1948. The period of one month was given under O. 41, R. 22, Civil P. C. expired in the summer vacation and the cross-objection was filed on the reopening day afte....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....with 104, 103 and 102 respectively of the settlement of 1893-94 and all of them were covered by the khasra No. 39 of the settlement of 1864. The plaintiff is a purchaser of the three fields under a deed of sale Ex. P-7 dated 15-3-1944 from one Shivnarayanpuri. The plaintiff traced the title of the vendor from one Fakirgir, the vendor being son of the daughter of Gajrajgir, the son of Fakirgir. Fakirgir had broken the land from waste prior to the settlement of 1864. This land was numbered as khasra No. 39 and was added to the mahal No. 3 of Ragho Vithal. Prior to the settlement of 1893-94 the area of these three fields was covered by what was described as khasra No. 39. In the settlement of 1893-94 khasra No. 39 was divided into four numbers....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ahal No. 3. But the latter document is but a certified copy of "the information concerning the new settlement". Neither side cared to file the entries from the record-of-rights. We do not know whether the "information" collected by the Assistant Settlement Officer in Ex. 2-D-I resulted in an entry in the record-or-rights exclusively in favour of the respondents under S. 79(a). The statutory presumption under S. 82 cannot therefore be invoked, nor have the parties placed on record the list of sir land, if any. given by the Settlement Officer under sub-s. (5) of S. 69 in proof of their ownership in whole or in part. 8. Before the first appeal court the plaintiff filed an additional document, a copy of the jamabandi of 1912-13. The learn....