Beni Madhab Dandapat vs Dina Bundhu Dutt

Macpherson, J.—The principal contention of the Appellant is that the road-cess return on which the lower Court relies is inadmissible as evidence under the provisions of sec. 95 of the Road Cess Act, inasmuch as it is evidence in favour of the principal Defendant. The road-cess return is undoubtedly evidence against the Plaintiff claiming through Srimanta, one of the persons who filed the return, and we think it is none the less evidence merely because, by admitting it as evidence against the Plaintiff, it becomes evidence in favour of the Defendant. Nor can we say that the lower Courts have put a wrong construction upon the document. The District Judge has held upon the evidence, oral or documentary, that Bhairab, through whom the first Defendant Dina Bundhu claims, had acquired an exclusive title to the property in suit, The documents to which he has referred are, we think, admissible in evidence, and we cannot say that the Judge has drawn wrong inferences from those documents. It was for the Judge to say what weight was to be attached to them and, upon the evidence furnished by those documents and the oral evidence in the suit, he has, as I have said, found that Bhairab had an exclusive title to the property and was alone in possession of it. There is no ground on which we can interfere in second appeal and we dismiss the appeal with costs.

Ameer Ali, J.

I am of the same opinion; the document which is said to be inadmissible in evidence is a road-cess return signed by Srimanta, one of the Plaintiff''s vendors, and the Defendant Dina Bundhu. It consists of two parts. In one part, the joint-properties are set out. In the other, the properties belonging to Dina Bundhu alone are mentioned and the land in suit which the Plaintiff claims as being joint-property of his vendors and Dina Bundhu is included in this second part. The Plaintiff''s case being that it was a portion of the joint-property, Dina Bundhu appears to have put in this document in order to disprove Plaintiff''s allegations, and both the Courts admitted it against the Plaintiff who claimed title under Srimanta, one of the persons making the return. These being the facts in connection with the return, I think it clearly admissible in evidence.