Law: Limitation Act, 1908

Section: Art. 144

Witness-Statement of, should be read as a whole-Cross -examination Part of suchstatement - Statement made in examination-in-chief negatived by that made in cross-examination Witness cannot be said to have proved fact covered by such state ment.   Limitation Act (IX of 1908); Art. 144-Adverse possessor, can tack period of hisown possession to period of adverse posses sion held by another through whom he derives title-Indepen dent trespassers cannot tack on one another's periods.   A I R 1940 Oudh 184 dissented from.   Halsbury's Laws of Vngland, Vol. 19 page 157 ; 43 I C 913 ; A I R 1934 P C 23 ; P L D 1954 Lah. 594 ; 35 Bom. 79 (90) and A I R 1951 Orissa 248 ref.   (c) Punjab Tenancy Act (XVI of 1887), S. 9-Application Claim to occupancy rights by adverse possession.   Section 9 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 precluding acquisition of right of occupancy by lapse of time applies to a claim to occupancy rights by adverse possession when originally claimed and not as successor to the deceased occupancy tenants.   P L D 1951 Lah. 85 ref.   Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 144-Occupancy rights ---Trespasser can acquireoccupancy rights by prescription against another occupancy tenant.   Registration Act (XVI of 1908), S. 17-Transfer of immovable property--Mutationsentered on basis of oral transfers ---Held, valid.   JUDGMENT   The plaintiff-appellant brought a suit in the Court of the Sub-Judge, Kotli, for the possession of the suit land comprising Survey Nos. 1464/185 measuring 20 kanals, 16 marlas, 1465/185 measuring 20 kanals, 16 marlas and 1405/194 measuring 38 kanals, 13 marlas with a Kacha house situate in village Khui Ratta, Tehsil Kotli, against the defendants-respondents alleging that the plaintiff possessed occupancy rights in the suit land ; and that the defendants had forcibly entered into possession during the year 1954. The Sub-Judge, Kotli, by his judgment dated 30-4-59, dismissed the plaintiff's suit with costs. He then went up in appeal before the District Judge, Mirpur, who also by his judgment and decree dated 21-9-60, dismissed the appeal with costs. Hence this second appeal.  …