DEBI CHARAN DEB Vs. MANIRAM DEB AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the plaintiff sued to recover possession with mesne profits of a one-third share in certain land. A witness for the plaintiff proved that the plaintiff held possession of the one-third share of the land, and had been subsequently ousted by the defendant. The Judge says:--"This witness appears respectable, and his evidence alone is worthy of belief. I am, therefore, clear that plaintiff was in possession of his share in suit within twelve years before the alienation and suit." The Court of first instance arrived at a similar conclusion. It was objected, however, before this Court in special appeal that there was no sufficient legal evidence, and that the witness ought to have shown what he meant by possession, and not merely to have stated that the plaintiff was in possession. I do not think that I can add anything to what I said when the case was before me, and when I referred it to the Full Bench. No doubt, if a witness were to come into Court and say that the plaintiff was in possession of one-third of an estate, I should think it necessary to cross-examine him, and to ask him how he knew it. But in this case, there was no cross examination, and the Judge says that the defendants' pleader declined to cross-examine the witness. It appears to me that there was legal evidence on which the Court was justified in deciding in favor of the plaintiff's possession, and that the question must be answered to the effect that, when a witness says that a party is in possession, that, in point of law, is admissible evidence of the fact that such party was in possession.

(2.) It is admitted by the pleader for the appellant that this is the only point in the case. The appeal will, therefore, be dismissed with costs.