AIR 1972 PATNA 186

Patna High Court

Hon'ble Judge(s): B. D. Singh , J

(A) Evidence Act (1 of 1872) , S.6(c)— Secondary evidence - Where the original document (Sada hukumnama) is not found to be lost by theft as alleged, evidence of witnesses of its contents is inadmissible by way of secondary evidence. But their evidence may be used to prove that the settlement of the land was made in their presence provided their evidence is not on the basis of the document. (Para 8) (B) Specific Relief Act (1 of 1877) , S.9— S.9 does not control the operation of S.110, Evidence Act or a suit based on possessory title. It merely provides a summary remedy for possession without establishing title to land from which a person has been dispossessed otherwise than in due course of law. Evidence Act (1 of 1872) , S.110— (Para 10) In a suit on possessory title the plaintiff would be entitled to a decree only where his possession is sufficient proof of title while in a suit under Section 9 the Court has merely to see whether the plaintiff was in possession within six months prior to institution of suit.(Para 10) (C) Limitation Act (9 of 1908) , Art.142, Art.144— Suit for declaration of title and posse....