Decisions, Zillah; Subordinante [And Assistant] Courts, Madras Presidency (Paperback)

,
Purchase of this book includes free trial access to www.million-books.com where you can read more than a million books for free. This is an OCR edition with typos. Excerpt from book: the well is in his possession as was proved by the Curnum and his other witnesses as also by the Nazit's account; that the well was admitted by the 1st Defendant, now 1st Respondent, not to be included in the land held by 2d Respondent; that as his land was now watered from the tank, the well had only been used for the purposes of washing, and hence the statement in ilit- decree that that well was applied to no use was not correct; that the three sides or1 the well stand in his (Appellant's) land; that no point was recorded to prove that the 2d Defendant had appropriated the land of .Appellant, and on these several grounds the Appellant prays for the annulment of the original decree. 5. The 1st Respondent allowed the cause to proceed exparte. 0. The 2d Respondent in his answer states that the Appellant omitted to show how he or his ancestors obtained possession of the well in question, which was included in the land purchased by him (2d Respondent); that there was no evidence to prove that the well is in the possession of lhe Appellant; that had it been the fact that the well is in his possession, it was unnecessary to rile any suit for its recovery; that the statements of the 1st Respondent who originated this suit are not to be credited with reference to the well in dispute, and accordingly prays for the confirmation of the original decree; and that his costs may be allowed. JUDGMENT. 7. The Civil Judge, having given his attentive consideration to the record of this suit, and having personally inspected the spot, is of opinion, that the original decree is borne out by the evidence. 8. The Court observes that the Appellant has produced no documentary evidence to prove his right to the well, and the witnesses cited by him, of whom the 1st and 2d are the monigars...

R645

Or split into 4x interest-free payments of 25% on orders over R50
Learn more

Discovery Miles6450
Mobicred@R60pm x 12* Mobicred Info
Free Delivery
Delivery AdviceOut of stock

Toggle WishListAdd to wish list
Review this Item

Product Description

Purchase of this book includes free trial access to www.million-books.com where you can read more than a million books for free. This is an OCR edition with typos. Excerpt from book: the well is in his possession as was proved by the Curnum and his other witnesses as also by the Nazit's account; that the well was admitted by the 1st Defendant, now 1st Respondent, not to be included in the land held by 2d Respondent; that as his land was now watered from the tank, the well had only been used for the purposes of washing, and hence the statement in ilit- decree that that well was applied to no use was not correct; that the three sides or1 the well stand in his (Appellant's) land; that no point was recorded to prove that the 2d Defendant had appropriated the land of .Appellant, and on these several grounds the Appellant prays for the annulment of the original decree. 5. The 1st Respondent allowed the cause to proceed exparte. 0. The 2d Respondent in his answer states that the Appellant omitted to show how he or his ancestors obtained possession of the well in question, which was included in the land purchased by him (2d Respondent); that there was no evidence to prove that the well is in the possession of lhe Appellant; that had it been the fact that the well is in his possession, it was unnecessary to rile any suit for its recovery; that the statements of the 1st Respondent who originated this suit are not to be credited with reference to the well in dispute, and accordingly prays for the confirmation of the original decree; and that his costs may be allowed. JUDGMENT. 7. The Civil Judge, having given his attentive consideration to the record of this suit, and having personally inspected the spot, is of opinion, that the original decree is borne out by the evidence. 8. The Court observes that the Appellant has produced no documentary evidence to prove his right to the well, and the witnesses cited by him, of whom the 1st and 2d are the monigars...

Customer Reviews

No reviews or ratings yet - be the first to create one!

Product Details

General

Imprint

Rarebooksclub.com

Country of origin

United States

Release date

July 2012

Availability

Supplier out of stock. If you add this item to your wish list we will let you know when it becomes available.

First published

July 2012

Authors

,

Creators

Dimensions

246 x 189 x 8mm (L x W x T)

Format

Paperback - Trade

Pages

146

ISBN-13

978-0-217-20004-2

Barcode

9780217200042

Categories

LSN

0-217-20004-4



Trending On Loot