9911796707
TMI Blog1959 (3) TMI 75X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent. He further avers that later on the lessees in collusion with the defendant dispossessed him. The defendant (respondent) has denied all the allegations contained in the plaint, claimed ownership of the land and stated that he and his an-cestors had leased out the land in dispute to Gul Farosh (flower vendors) and according to the custom prevailing, if the owner of the land desired to evict the Gul Farosh, he had to pay money towards the right of owneiship and possession of the lease and in pursuance of this practice, he purchased the right of ownership and possession of the Phool Bagh from his Kauldars Khaja Sherif and Makdoom Sherif through a registered sale deed 18-3-51F. In the rejoinder, the appellant admitted that the flower gard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it property and whether he was in possession and has been dispossessed by the respondent. In order to prove title and possession, the appellant relies on the registered sale deed, two lease deeds, pauti bahi the revenue receipts from 1337 F. to 1355 F. and the oral testimony of five witnesses. So far as the patte-dari of the plaintiff is concerned, the defendant has denied tnat he is a pattedar. The appellant has filed the pauti bahi, murasala of the Tahsil and the mutation record. All these go to prove that the patta of the suit land stands in the name of the plaintiff. It is also evident that previous to this, the patta stood in the name of the plaintiff's father. As against this there is no evidence on behalf of the respondent. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his kauldar, apart from the oral evidence, relies on two lease deeds, Exs. 2 and 20 Exhibit 2 is a kaulnama executed by Ahmed Sherif on 4th Dai 1350 F. For a period ot 5 years. Exhibit 20 is another kaul dated 26th Khurdad 1336F, by Sherif Sab son of Ismail Sab. It may be noted here that Ahmed Sherif is the son of Ismail Sab and Khaja Sherif and Man-doom Sherif are the sons of Ahmed Sherif. Yousuf Ali, P. W. 2 and Khaja Mia, P. W. 5 have spoken to the fact of these kubuliats. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that though these kubuliats are unregistered, still they are admissible to prove the nature of possession and also the admission by Ahmed Sherif that the plaintiff is the owner, whereas the contention of the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as a lease. This was also unregistered. Question was raised that it was inadmissible. 5. It was held: "An agreement if unregistered will not be admissible as a lease although a statement in it may be admitted as an admission. When such a statement is admitted as an admission, it is only a piece of evidence and it is open to the party who has made the admission to show that it was made in circumstances which did not make the admission binding on him or on her as the case may be." In this case, Mr. Justice Mitter has relied upon the Privy Council decision in Hemanta Kumari Debi v. Midnapur Zamindari Co., AIR 1919 PC 79. We are also of the opinion that though the lease deeds in question being unregistered are inadmissible in evi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore say that he is not bound by the admission of his father. Of course, it was open to him to rebut the admission by producing evidence or giving some satisfactory explanation, but this is not so; on the other hand Khaja Sherif has clearly admitted that he and his ancestors were kauldars of the appellant. Taking this document and reading it along with the sale deed and the oral evidence, there does not remain any doubt that the plaintiff-appellant is the owner of the suit property. As against this evidence, there is only the deposition of two witnesses. Ram Reddy and Noor Khan. Ram Reddy says that he has been seeing the possession of B. Ranga Reddy for the last 40 years, that he had leased out the suit land to Khaja Mia and Maqdoom M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellate court cannot be upheld. The appellant has filed a suit for possession, mesne profits and for damages. The trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff for possession and as regards the mesne profits the direction of the trial court was that the plaintiff would be entitled to mesne profits at the rate of ₹ 350/- per year from the date of the suit till the date of possession and dismissed the claim lor damages. Against the order of the trial Court, refusing to give a decree to the plaintiff for mesne profits for three years prior to the suit, the plaintiil did not take any action. That order has become final. As per the directions of the trial Court, the plaintiff therefore would only be entitled to mesne profits from t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
