"The decision can only be based on the general rule of evidence in favour of presuming the continuity of things shown to exist at a prior date. It is certainly a plausible argument that if the plaintiff has shown that he was in possession in 1896, he must be presumed to have continued in possession, unless and until his dispossession is proved by the defendants. But the presumption in question is a general presumption. It would equally apply, no matter what the evidence on which the plaintiff relied to prove his possession in 1896."
15. It is somewhat plain on both authority and general principle that with regard to a legal guardian in possession of the estate of the minor, there would be a presumption of the continuity of possession after the death of the minor till it has been shown otherwise that he was dispossessed thereof.
Citation : AIR 1987 Pat 239
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PATNA
FULL BENCH
FULL BENCH
Letters Patent Appeal No. 42 of 1982
Decided On: 29.09.1986
Sudama Devi and Ors.
Vs.
Jogendra Choudhary and Ors.
Vs.
Jogendra Choudhary and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
S.S. Sandhawalia , C.J., L.M. Sharma and S. Ali Ahmad , JJ.
S.S. Sandhawalia , C.J., L.M. Sharma and S. Ali Ahmad , JJ.
