ARUN KUMAR versus STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR.

Citation: [2008] 5 S.C.R. 1192 · Decided: 07-04-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2008] 5 S.C.R. 1192 
ARUN KUMAR 
v. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR. 
(Civil Appeal Nos.1096-1097 of 2002) 
APRIL 7, 2008 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] 
Tenancy laws.' 
Bombay Ten~ocf and Agricultural lands Act, 1948 -
C s.5(3)(b) - Surrender of lands relating to two survey numbers 
by tenant-respondent - Order passed by Tehsildar showed 
only land relating to one survey number - Respondent filed 
application for grant of occupancy rights - Dismissed - High 
Court placed reliance on order of Tehsildar that surrender was 
D only in respect of one survey number - On appeal, Held: 
Documents show that lands in respect of both survey numbers 
were surrendered by respondent - Deposition of respondent 
in a statement made before Tehsildar that he voluntarily left 
cultivation and surrender deed bore his signature - In view of 
E documentary evidence, High Court ought not to have placed 
reliance on order where there appeared omission of 
surrendered survey number. 
Appellant was the owner of suit property measuring 
2 acres 30 guntas in Survey no.179 and an extent of 2 
F acres and 15 guntas in Survey no.106. The said land was 
under the tenancy of respondent no.2 who had 
surrendered both the suit properties to the appellant's 
father. To substantiate such stand the appellant produced 
the deed of surrender, statement of the father of the 
G appellant dated 22.8.1955 before the Tehsifdar; statement 
of the respondent dated 6.9.1955 before the Tehsildar and 
possession certificate issued in the presence of Village 
Accountant and Panchas on 8.12.1955, which were in 
respect of both the properties. 
H 
1192 
ARUN KUMAR v. STATE OF KARNATAKAAND ANR. 
1193 
Apart from the above documents, mutation entries A 
in the records in respect of both the properties were in 
favour of the appellants since 1955. However, due to 
inadvertence when the order was passed by Tehsildar on 
6.9.1955, Survey no.106 was not recorded. Taking 
advantage of the said order, respondent no.2 filed an s 
application for grant of occupancy rights after amendment 
to the Act w.e.f. 1.3.197 4. The Appellate Authority, recorded 
the findings that there has been valid surrender in 
accordance with the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy 
Act in the year 1955 itself. It was, however, got recorded C 
in the name of the appellant in the revenue records since 
1955 without any objection from respondent no.2 and as 
on 1.3.1974 the respondent no.2 was not cultivating the 
land at the tenancy. 
A revision was filed before the High Court by o 
respondent no.2, wherein it was held that the surrender 
was only in respect of Survey no.179, and, therefore, 
respondent no.2 was entitled to grant of occupancy rights 
in respect of Survey no .. 106. 
In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that the E 
High Court did not notice the requirement of s.5(3)(b) of 
the Bombay Tenancy Act, according to which the 
requirement for valid surrender namely; firstly, surrender 
deed has to be executed and secondly it has to be verified 
by the Tehsildar/Mamlatdar. 
F 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. In the surrender certificate, it was clearly 
noted that both the lands were handed over to the father 
of the appellant. All the documents relied upon by the G 
appellant clearly show that the surrender was in respect 
of lands relating to both survey numbers. [Para 9] 
[1197-D-E] 
1.2. The deposition of respondent no.2 dated 6.9.1955 
clearly showed that he himself admitted that he voluntarily H 
1194 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 5 S.C.R. 
A left cultivation and the surrendered deed bore his 
signature. In view of the documentary evidence, the High 
Court ought not to have placed reliance on the order dated 
6.9.1955 where there appeared to be genuine omission 
of the surrendered survey number. A surrender by 
B tenant could be only valid and binding on him if it was 
in writing and was verified by Mamlatdar whose duty is 
to ascertain whether surrender was voluntary and was 
not under any pressure or undue influence of the landlord. 
[Paras 10, 11] [1198-G; 1199-A-B] 
C 
Val/abbhai Nathabhai v. Bai Jivi AIR (1969) SC 1190; 
Ramchandra Keshav Adke (Dead) by Lrs. v. Govind Joti 
Chavare and Ors. (1975) 1 SCC 559 - referred to. 
1.3. The documentary evidence clearly established 
0 
the fact that the surrender was voluntary and without 
pressure or undue influence. Tehsildar had endorsed his 
findings on the document itself. It is necessary to refer to 
ss.

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.