GOVINDA PADAYACHI Vs. DORAISAWMI PADAYACHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The judgment of the learned District Judge cannot be said to satisfactorily dispose of the questions he had to determine before reversing the judgment of the District Munsif, who found in favour of the plaintiff on all the issues. The patta standing in the name of one man, the kist receipts could not show whether any particular portion of the land covered by the patta belonged to the husband of the plaintiff s vendor or to the defendant. Yet the District Judge seems to discard the evidence of the 4th witness for the plaintiff solely on the ground that the kist receipts do not specify for what particular plot payments were made. The Judge has also failed to deal with the question raised by the 2nd issue, for if the plaintiff made out that he was in possession of the land and afterwards wrongfully dispossessed by the defendant the plaintiff would be entitled to a decree unless the defendant is able to make out his title to the property. We must, therefore, call for revised findings on the 1st issue and a finding on the 2nd issue.

(2.) The finding should be submitted within six weeks from this date and seven days will be allowed for filing objections.

(3.) In compliance with the order contained in the above, the District Judge, Trichinopoly, submitted the following FINDING