Back
PONNIAH ET AL. v. CHELLIAH ET AL.
NLR51V289
1849 Present : Nagalingam J.
and Pulle J.
PONNIAH et al, Appellants, and CHELLIAH et al., Respondents
S. C. 45-D. C. Chavakachcheri, 2,760
Evidence Ordinance-Entries in
public documents-Admissibility and proof of -Sections 34 to 38, 84.
Action rei vindicatio-Description of land in dispute in deeds relating, to
adjoining properties-Probative value.
Entries of statements regarding title to land made in documents which were
prepared under sections 10 and 11 of the Defence (Paddy Cultivation)
Regulations, 1943, fall under section 35 of the Evidence Ordinance and are
admissible without further proof such as by calling the persons who wrote or
made the entries or statements.
Where a land, the title to which is in dispute, is alleged to belong to a
temple, the mere description of it in language suggesting that it belongs to the
temple in the deeds relating to the lands adjoining the disputed land cannot be
regarded as conclusive legal proof of the title of the temple to the land. While
a description of a parcel of land in the deeds relating to the adjoining
properties may furnish corroboration of title it does not constitute direct,
evidence of legal title.
APPEAL
from a judgment of the District Court, Chavakachcheri.
This was an action rei vindicatio in respect of a paddy land.
In proof of possession by the second defendant, who was the vendor to the
plaintiff, certified copies of certain documents prepared under sections 10 and
11 of the Defence (Paddy Cultivation) Regulations, 1943, were produced.
According to those sections the duty is cast on every owner or cultivator of
land which is cultivated with paddy to give information relating to (1) the
names and addresses of the person or persons entitled to take or receive any
part of the produce of the land, (2) the share or shares of the produce to which
such person or persons may be entitled. The regulations also empower the proper
authority to require any person present at the time of his inspection or
assessment to furnish information as to the names and addresses of the persons
who are known to be entitled to shares in such paddy and the respective shares
claimed by such persons.
It was argued that the documents which were produced did not stand on a level
higher than that of private documents and should have been rejected in the
absence of express proof given by the officers who made or compiled them.
C. Thiagalingam, with S. Mahadeva, for the first and third defendants,
appellants.
S. J. V. Chelvanayagam, K.C., with C. Vanniasingham, for the second
defendant respondent.
C. Chellappah, with S. Sharvananda, for the plaintiff respondent.
Cur. adv. vult.
December 14, 1949. NAGALINGAM
J.-
This is an appeal from a judgment of the learned District Judge of
Chavakachcheri declaring the plaintiff entitled to an allotment of land called
Kadatkiranchithalavuvayal described in the schedule to the plaint. The
appellants, who are the first and third defendants, contest the finding of the
learned District Judge on the ground that he has misdirected himself both on the
facts and the law.
This being an action for rei vindicatio the burden is primarily on the plaintiff
to establish his title. The second defendant respondent who is the vendor to the
plaintiff traces his title from a thombu register of 1822 in which, inter alia,
a land bearing the name of the land in dispute and in extent 25 lachams p.c, is
registered in the name of one Sinnapillai, wife of Kadirgaman. That the
description of the land given- in the thombu-or the lack of description
therein-is such that direct identification of the land in the register with the
land in dispute is not possible is conceded; further, the entry being one made
in the year 1822, oral testimony of identification is also out of the question.
The second defendant, however, takes upon himself to say that the land referred
to in the thombu register is th
