Thama Vs. Kondan and ors.

Thama vs Kondan and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Mar 09, 1892

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/784398

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/784398
Court: Chennai
Judge: Arthur J.H. Collins, Kt., C.J. and ;Parker, J.
Decided On: Mar 09, 1892
Subject: Civil

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Evidence Act - Act I of 1872, Section 35--Recital in a judgment--Admission of jenmi's title. -

Key legal issue: Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Thama

Respondent

Kondan and ors.

Legal References

Cases Referred: Byathamma v. Avulla (see
Reported In: (1892)ILR15Mad378

Excerpt

evidence act - act i of 1872, section 35--recital in a judgment--admission of jenmi's title. - 1. we think that the recital of the admission in the judgment c was a relevant fact as evidence of the jenmi's title under section 35 of the evidence act fsee lekraj kuar v. mahpal singh i.l.r. 5 cal. 744, parbutty dassi v. purno chunder singh i.l.r. 9 cal. 586, byathamma v. avulla (see ante, p. 19).2. the judge was therefore wrong in excluding the evidence from consideration. it is for him to consider the binding effect of the admission and also the question raised in the second ground of appeal.3. we must reverse the decree and remand the appeal to the lower appellate court for disposal. costs will follow the result.

Full Judgment

1. We think that the recital of the admission in the judgment C was a relevant fact as evidence of the jenmi's title under Section 35 of the Evidence Act fsee Lekraj Kuar v. Mahpal Singh I.L.R. 5 Cal. 744, Parbutty Dassi v. Purno Chunder Singh I.L.R. 9 Cal. 586, Byathamma v. Avulla (see ante, p. 19).

2. The Judge was therefore wrong in excluding the evidence from consideration. It is for him to consider the binding effect of the admission and also the question raised in the second ground of appeal.

3. We must reverse the decree and remand the appeal to the lower Appellate Court for disposal. Costs will follow the result.

Same Parties Thama vs Kondan and ors. Same Subject Civil Same Judge Arthur J.H. Collins, Kt., C.J. and ;Parker, J.

Civil