9911796707
TMI Blog1895 (7) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he defendant under the instrument consiated in the right to enjoy the produce of all the trees in the tank-bed as also the grass and the reeds and further to cut and remove the trees for a period exceeding four years. It was not merely the trees and grass then growing and ready to be cut that the defendant was to acquire. He was further to be at liberty to take all the trees which might grow on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not state the facts with sufficient fullness and adequacy. It appears, however, to be found that the plaintiff received from the defendant ₹ 200 in cash and ₹ 3,200 in the shape of a promissory note and that this payment was made in consideration of the plaintiff allowing the defendant to cut the trees and take the other produce for a period of years. It also, appears to be found that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oying that for which he has paid. Seeing that the defendant has actually paid only ₹ 200 and must have had in the shape of timber and other things sufficient quid pro quo, I do not think he has any cause to complain of the injunction. I would dismiss the appeal with costs. Best J. 4. The yadast on which appallant rejies is no doubt an instrument creating an interest in immoveable property ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ist a claim by the plaintiff for possession of the tank. The present suit, however, is not for possession of the tank, but only for a declaration of plaintiff's right to certain standing trees and for an injunction restraining defendant from felling the same. An unregistered document inadmissible as evidence affecting immoveable property is none the less admissible when the question relates on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
