Report No. 69
C. Selected Cases as to Recitals of Boundaries
12.113. We do not propose to summarise all decisions; a few cases which reveal the nature of controversy may be mentioned. Thus, in Abdullah v. Kunj Behari Lal, (1911) 14 CLJ 467 (Cal), it was decided that recitals of boundaries in deeds of sales and mortgages executed by owners of adjoining plots of land, and describing the disputed land as the tenanted land of the defendents or their predecessors, were relevant under section 32(3), though not under section 32(2) or section 11 or section 13.
With this we could contrast In re Daddapeneni Narayenappa (in re:), 1910 MWN 268. A single Judge of the Madras High Court held that erecital in a document dealing with neighbouring land, that the land in question belonged to the plaintiff, was not admissible.
And two Judges of the Madras High Court differed in Saripalli Venkata-ravagapala Rain v. Foto Narasayya,1914 MWN 779.
12.114. In a Calcutta case,1 it was observed-
"The question to be decided is whether the statement by the grantor in the schedule to the lease, that on the boundary of the land demised was the holding of the predecessor of the present plaintiff can be used in evidence against the Defendant although they were not parties to the transaction evidenced by that document. In our opinion the document is admissible in evidence on the principle explained by this Court in the case of Abdullah v. Kunj Beheri, 14 CIJ 467: (1911) 16 OWN 108,.
In fact the case before us is stronger than the case then before the Court, because it is alleged here that the statement was made by the landlord of the Plantiff who might be expected to know who was in occupation of (he land as his tenant. The case is, therefore, completely covered by the decision in these cases of Ningava v. Bharmappa, (1897) ILR 23 Bom 63., Abdul Aziz Mollah v. Ebrahim Molla, 1904 ILR 31 Cal 965., and Burba Mandari Meghanath, (1905) 2 CLJ 4n."
1. Imrit Chamar v. Jibothary Pandey, 17 OWN 108 (110) (Mookerjee & Conduff, JJ.).
12.115. In Abdul Ali v. Syed Hajan Ali, (1914) 19 CWN 468,- Another Calcutta case, it was held that such recitals were inadmissible in evidence against a party who was stranger to them, and that the ruling as to the admissibility of the documents in one earlier case-Dwarka Math v. Mukundu Lal, (1907) 5 Col LL 55,-was obiter. In another Calcutta case" again, it was decided that recitals of boundaries of other lands in documents between their parties were not admissible in evidence It was held in the Allahabad case of Natwar v. Alkhu, (1913) 11 ALJ 139, that such a document is admissible in evidence under section 32(b).
12.116. These reported cases will suffice to show the conflict of decisions. It may also be noted that the controversy exists not only amongst the several High Courts, but also within each individual High Court. Thus, the Calcutta High Court, has, in some decisions, excluded such statements, but, in other cases, it has held them to be admissible1 The Madras High Court has expressed different views on different occasions.2
The Patna High Court admitted such statements in some cases, but excluded them in other cases.3
1. Contrast Katabuddin's case, AIR 1927 Cal 230, (Cuming & M.N. Mukhetjee, JJ.) with Ambica Charan's case, AIR 1928 Cal 893 and Kumud Kumari, AIR 1927 Cal 918 (Duval and Mitter, JJ.).
2. Contrast Karuppanna's case, AIR 1928 Mad 105, with Rangayyan's case, AIR 1956 Mad 226
3. See Soney Lall's case, AIR 1935 Pat 167 (168) (FB) and Hari Ahir's case, AIR 1934 Pat 61 (619) (Wort, J.).
Back
