PARTITION- The difficulties arise when the traditional land measures are compared with the English standard equivalents. The common conversion tables found in various sources are unreliable.it is not possible to correlate sowing extents accurately with surface extents. Such a correlation depends on various factors such as the size and quality of the grain, the fertility of the soil, the peculiarities of the sower and local conditions. The sizes (the capacity) of the traditional measures such as lahas and neliyas differ not only between districts but also within districts. It is a grave error to conclude in partition actions that the identification of the corpus is not established upon a mere superficial comparison of the schedule to the plaint, which is a reproduction of the schedules to old deeds, with the existing boundaries as depicted in the Preliminary Plan. Boundaries do not remain unchanged. They change over the years due to various factors, be it natural or man-made. Whether or not the Preliminary Plan represents the land described in the schedule to the plaint shall be determined upon a consideration of the totality of the evidence led in the case and not solely by such a comparison..the Court cannot dismiss a partition action on the basis that the surveyor in his Report to the Preliminary Plan has failed to answer or answered in the negative the question “Whether or not the land surveyed by him is in his opinion substantially the same as the land sought to be partitioned as described in the schedule to the plaint”. Nor can the Court blindly accept that the Preliminary Plan depiicts the entire land to be partitioned, if the surveyor in his Report answers the above question in the affirmative. Whether or not the land has been correctly identified shall be finally decided not by the surveyor but by the Court having taken into consideration the totality of the evidence adduced before it. The answer to the said question by the surveyor is undoubtedly an important item of evidence but it cannot decide the whole case.

-

 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

CIVIL PROCEDURE AMENDMENT NO 43 OF 2024

-
Image
  defult of appearance - An overview  by GalleLaw Blogger  on the amendment 43 of 2024 to section 86, 87 and 88 to the CPC  VACATION OF exparte ORDERS, JUDGMENTS AND DECREES. The Civil Procedure Code (Ordinance No. 2 of 1889) governed case procedures in the Original and Appellate Courts for nearly 85 years, from 1889 until 1974, when it was replaced by the Administration of Justice Laws No. 44 of 1973 and No. 25 of 1974. During a brief period from 1974 to 1977, the Civil Procedure Code was superseded by the AJL. However, in 1977, the Civil Procedure Code of 1889 was reinstated by the Civil Courts Procedure (Special Provisions) Law No. 19 of 1977. Section 86 of the Civil Procedure Ordinance outlined the procedures for setting aside a decree *nisi*  (a provisional judgment)  under the CPC ordinance. Under Section 86(2), if a defendant provides reasonable grounds for the default, the court was empowered to set aside the decree and resume the case from the s...
Read more

What law governs the granting or remanding of an accused or suspect person? The law that governs the granting or remanding of an accused or suspect person is the Bail Act No. 30 of 1997. This Act provides for the release on bail of persons suspected or accused of being concerned in committing or having committed an offense. It also provides for the granting of anticipatory bail and other related matters. The Bail Act establishes that the grant of bail should be the guiding principle, subject to exceptions as provided for in the Act, and refusal to grant bail should be the exception. It prevails over the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act and other written laws, except for the Release of Remand Prisoners Act, No. 8 of 1991.

-
Image
  SUMMARY BY THE BLOGGER    Background:  The accused has been indicted for the offense of grave sexual abuse of a minor, an offense is punishable under section 365B (2) (b) of the Penal Code. The accused was initially released on bail by the Court. The trial against the accused commenced on 21-07-2022. On 5th October 2023, the Court ordered the accused to be remanded pending further trial. The Lawyer for the accused filed a motion seeking bail, but it was refused.   The petitioner, acting on behalf of the accused, filed an application for revision in the Court of Appeal invoking Article 138 of The Constitution. After considering the facts, circumstances, and relevant law, the Court ordered the immediate release of the accused from remand custody on the earlier bail conditions.   1.   The Court relied on section 263 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act to remand the accused, but failed to consider the relevant provisions of the Bail Act No. 30 of ...
Read more