|
[1921] PC 65
|
[1921] PC 65
|
|
United Kingdom
|
circa 1921
|
|
|
 3
|
|
Ex "B" i e , the kabala by of the tenants and their predecessors-in- Anandamoyi in favour of defendants' title at an unaltered rent and on a kabu- predecessor-in-interest Barada Kristo Roy liat which show that these transmissions in the benami of Rakhal Chandra Mu- of property as permanent tenancy was kherji was brought home to the know brought home to the landlord who re ledge of the appellant or his predecessors- cognized the right created by these docu in-title and was acknowledged by them ments by accepting a kabuliat In the There are no pucca structures in the second case the land had been occupied land It has not been shown that they by the tenants' predecessors at an un were let for residential purposes It is altered rent for 100 years They had not shown that they were being used for built on it and have dealt with the pro residential purposes And the fact that perty by sale and mortgage A kabuliat they were amalgamated with holding 2 on and a patfca were executed which brought which at one time a pucca structure stood home to the landlord, knowledge and re cannot give to these holdings the charac cognition of the tenants' transmission of ter of permanency the property by sale in an instrument In the case of Nainapillai Marakayar which purported to convey a permanent v Bamanathan Ghettiar (6), the Judicial and inheritable right Committee laid down the law in regard Reliance has been placed by the learned to the matter in hand in the following vakil for the respondent on the case of words : Gasperz v Kedarnath Sarhadhikari (10) It cannot now be doubted that when a tenant That case is also distinguishable For of lands in India in a suit by his landlord to eject him from them,set2 up a defence that he in that case the following facts co-ex has a right of permanent! tenancy in the lands, isted : -- the onU3 of proving that he has such right is (1) Long possession by the defendants upon the tenant In Secy, of State v Luch- meswar Singh (7), it was held that the onus of and their predecessors
|
|
Privy Council
|
India
|
circa 1921
|
|
|
|
