under Section 50 of the Evidence Act, when the court has to form an opinion about the relationship expressed by conduct as to the existence of such relationship by any person, who has special means of knowledge, it is relevant. The person whose opinion is expressed by conduct is relevant when he is a member of the family or otherwise, has special means of knowledge on the particular subject of relationship, in other words, the person must fulfil the conditions laid down in the later part of this section.
where there is such conflict, the
latter entries recorded in the record of rights are presumed to be correct and not the earlier ones.
D. W. 7. Jagannath Nath, lives at 265 Maharaj Nanda Kumar Road (South). He says that his house is to the opposite of 85, Maharaj Nanda Kumar Road intervened by a road and that premises has an area of 4 to 44 cottahs of land. Dukhiram has been possessing the same for the last 17 years. Mansur and Bechu possessed the property before Dukhiram started possessing it and he did not see Hamizuddin or Sk. Akbar On this land He further says that Tara Prosad or Mrityunjoy never possessed the property. They are the neighbours and thus had special means of knowledge within the meaning of the principles enunciated in the aforesaid case of Dol Gobinda v. Nemai (supra)
and the conditions of the later part of Section 50 of the Evidence Act have been fulfilled.
Calcutta High Court
Dukhiram Dey vs Mrityunjoy Prosad Daw And Ors. on 12 January, 1982
Equivalent citations: AIR 1975 Cal 294 a
Bench: P Banerjee, B Maitra
