MANNUMAL Vs. PRIT BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendant's second appeal arising out of a suit for possession of a room and mesne profits for the same. It arises under the following circumstances: The plaintiff respondent Smt. Prit Bai purchased in auction held by the Regional Settlement Commissioner. Rajasthan, Jaipur on 12tb January, 1957, property bearing No. AMC. VI1/884 XIV/164 (old number) corresponding to AMC No XXII/89 (new number) situated at Nawab-Ka-Bera Ajmer. The sale certificate in respect of this property was granted to the appellant by the Managing Officer, Ajmer on 20-6-1962, copy of which has been placed on the record, and marked Ex. 7a. The plaintiff alleged in the plaint held on 21-6-1965 that on or about 1-6-1962 the defendant-appellant Mannumal forcibly occupied the room situated in the south of the property purchased by the plaintiff. The plaintiff, therefore, prayed that a decree for possession of the room in dispute may be granted in her favour and she may also be awarded Rs. 173/- as damages for use and occupation upto the date of the suit and also future mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 5/- per month till the date of delivery of possession of the room to her.

(2.) THE defendant denied the plaintiff's claim to the room in question an pleaded that he had been in continuance possession of the same since 1-1-1948 as owner and the same formed part of his own house. He also pleaded that the plaintiff's suit is barred by limitation as she had not been in possession of the room in question within 12 years before the date of the suit.

(3.) IN Nana Akpandja vs. Fiaga Egllomesse (3) their Lordship of the Privy Council while dealing with a map adduced in evidence held that it was not absolutely clear that the map was made under the authority of any Government, and observed as follows: - "their accuracy must depend upon the source from which the information is obtained, and in their Lordships view no sufficient evidence as to the chiefs or other information who have been questioned is forthcoming, nor is it clear how far that evidence has been tested by checking the evidence of one informant against that of another. "