9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of the term "Damodarpur Lakhawar" in the pottah. 2. Admissibility of additional evidence in the appellate court under Rule 27, Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure Act, 1908. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Interpretation of the term "Damodarpur Lakhawar" in the pottah: The central controversy in the suit revolves around the interpretation of the term "Damodarpur Lakhawar" in the pottah dated May 30, 1880. The plaintiffs claimed that the term referred to only one village, while the defendant argued that it encompassed three villages: Lakhawar Khas, Lakhawar Faridpur, and Damodarpur Lakhawar. The historical context reveals that in 1843, a Government survey measured the lands of these three villages together due to their intermixed nature (Makhlut), and they were entered under the same number in the Collector's register. This suggested a composite revenue unit. The plaintiffs' claim was supported by the High Court of Patna, which found that the three properties formed separate mouzahs and that the two disputed villages were not appurtenant hamlets of Damodarpur. Consequently, the grant under the pottah was interpreted to refer to only one village. However, the defendant presented documentary evidence, including a Kabuliat executed by Harihar Narain Singh in 1880, which specified that the term "Damodarpur Lakhawar" referred to all three villages. This evidence was initially disregarded by the lower courts due to perceived gaps in the evidence. 2. Admissibility of additional evidence in the appellate court under Rule 27, Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure Act, 1908: The defendant sought to introduce additional documents to fill the gaps identified by the lower courts. These documents included a Hukumnamah dated May 31, 1880, and a Tunkhah dated January 24, 1880, which provided explicit instructions regarding the payment of rent and the inclusion of all three villages under the term "Damodarpur Lakhawar." The High Court initially refused to admit these documents, interpreting Rule 27, Order XLI as prohibiting the admission of additional evidence unless the appellate court itself discovered some inherent lacuna or defect. The court did not consider the possibility that the suitor might be entitled to apply for the admission of additional evidence for any "substantial cause." Upon appeal, it was argued that the appellate court has the authority to admit additional evidence if substantial cause is shown. The Privy Council emphasized that rules of procedure should not hinder justice and admitted the documents, concluding that the term "Damodarpur Lakhawar" indeed referred to all three villages. Conclusion: The Privy Council found that the term "Damodarpur Lakhawar" in the pottah denoted all three villages, based on the newly admitted evidence. Consequently, the decrees of the lower courts were set aside, and the plaintiffs' suit was dismissed. The appellant was entitled to costs both in the Privy Council and in the courts in India.
|
