LAWS(PVC)-1914-4-165

NAGENDRA NATH GHOSE Vs. RAM BHAROSA HALUAI

Decided On April 28, 1914
NAGENDRA NATH GHOSE Appellant
V/S
RAM BHAROSA HALUAI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two points are raised in this second appeal. The first that the learned Subordinate Judge was wrong in holding that the plaintiff s title had been proved, inasmuch as he did not call defendant No. 5 to show that there had been actual delivery of possession, the price of the property being less than Rs. 100, and it is further urged that Ganga Das Sil, the undoubted purchaser of the holding at a revenue sale, could not after his transfer by sale to defendant No. 5 give the plaintiff a clear title by giving him a conveyance. This argument is somewhat ingenious, but it fails to convince us.

(2.) As regards the first part of the contention, the plaintiff s sworn testimony that there was delivery of possession is quite sufficient if it is believed, and the Subordinate Judge appears to have Relieved it. It was not, therefore necessary to call defendant No. 5 : and if the Munsif had thought that the plaintiff s suit must necessarily, fail unless the defendant No. 5 was called, we think it would only have been right to have told the plaintiff this and not to have announced it when he came to write his judgment. As a matter of fact one man s evidence is as good as another s provided it commends itself to the Court.

(3.) As regards the granting of conveyance ex majori cautela to the plaintiff by Ganga Das Sil, we do not see that there is any objection in law or equity to such a course. If the purchaser from Ganga Das had had the misfortune to lose his kobala, which was not a registered instrument, and if the defendant thereupon said that tie was not the purchaser from Ganga Das, there can be no doubt that Ganga Das, knowing the facts, was in duty bound to give the plaintiff a clear title as far as he could by reconveying him the property which, the defendant contended, had not already been conveyed to defendant No. 5. If, on the other hand it is admitted that it had been conveyed to defendant No. 5, then there is no further need of supporting the plaintiff s title.