9911796707
TMI Blog1954 (11) TMI 55X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssion 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 after the vacation. We are not aware of any practice of this Court to entertain cross-objec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 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 102, 103, 104 and 120. Out of these, khasra Nos. 102, 103 and 104 were held by Fakirgi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 learned appeal judge fell into error in regarding it as a copy of the Settlement Jamabandi. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stances, the learned appeal judge was right in holding that the plaintiff was entitled to joint possession along with the defendant. There was nothing to show what was the quantum of the interest of the parties in the fields in suit. In the absence of evidence, the three parties, i.e. (i) the branch represented by Jaikrishna and Bhaskar, (ii) Narayan Ghatate and (iii) the predecessors-in-title of the plaintiff, must be held to own equally the fields in suit. If that be so, the decree should have been for joint possession of 1/3 interest in the fields in suit instead of 1/2 as given by the appeal Court. 9. As the defendants dispossessed the plaintiff in denial of his title, the plaintiff was entitled to a share of the profits in 1944-4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
