Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MARAS
Kandada Narasimhacharyalu
Versus
Kavicherla Ramabrahmam
Decided On : 3 February, 1913
Presumption - Possession Rights - Summary: The court considered the plaintiff's entitlement to recover possession and the defendants' failure to rebut the presumption in favor of the plaintiff. The plaintiff's melvaram rights were presumed, and the defendants' occupancy rights were not sufficiently established to rebut this presumption. The judge's decision was confirmed based on the consideration of all evidence.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, an Agraharamdar, sought to recover possession from the defendants who had been in possession for a long time. The defendants admitted to having no occupancy right in documents produced by the plaintiff.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the defendants failed to rebut the presumption in favor of the plaintiff's possession rights, and the terms in the documents produced by the plaintiff were not of sufficient weight to change this presumption.
Issues: The main issue was the entitlement to possession and the defendants' occupancy rights.
Ratio Decidendi: The presumption of the plaintiff's melvaram rights and the insufficiency of the defendants' evidence to establish occupancy rights influenced the court's decision.
Final Decision: The judgment was confirmed, and the second appeals were dismissed.
1. It is argued before us that the facts admitted show prima facie that the plaintiff is entitled to recover possession and the defendants have failed to rebut the presumption in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is one of the Agraharamdars who obtained the village on Inam from the Nuzvid Zamindar. The presumption therefore is that they have only the melvaram rights. The origin of the defendants tenancy is not shown and it is clear they have been in possession for a very long time. The plaintiff has however produced two muchilikas executed by the defendants in the two suits in which they admit they have no occupancy right. It is not however contended that they estop the defendants from setting up their occupancy right. The judge has taken them into consideration and found that the terms in these documents were newly introduced and therefore not of sufficient weight to rebut the presumption in the defendants favour arising from the other circumstances in the cases. The other evidence also supports the plaintiffs contention. But the question is one of fact, and we are unable to say the judge has not considered the whole evidence We feel therefore constrained though with some hesitation to confirm the judgment and dismiss the second appeals.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
