DEVI SINGH versus BOARD OF REVENUE FOR RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

Citation: [1993] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 221 · Decided: 12-10-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI, N.P. SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

DEVI SINGH 
A 
v. 
BOARD OF REVENUE FOR RAJASTHAN AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 12, 1993 
[M.M. PUNCHHI AND N.P. SINGH, JJ.] 
B 
Rajasthan Zamindari and Biswedari Abolition Act, 1959: Section 
5(4)-Suit--Claim for land as Khatedars-Evidence in support of Claim-
Revenue Record of Jamabandi-Gap in Revenue Recor<J-.-Qra/ evidence in 
support of gap-Whether could be adduced.-Possessory matters-Apprecia- . C 
tion of evidence in. 
Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955: Sections 221-229 Board of Revenue -
Confirmation of decree in exercise of appellate powers-Decree impugned in 
anciliary proceedings-Whether Board could invoke general power of super-
intendence to set aside decree. 
D . 
Doctrine of Merger -Applicability of. 
The appellants filed five suits against the State of Rajasthan seeking 
declaration that by virtue of Section 5( 4) of the Rajasthan Zamlndari and 
Biswedari Abolition Act, 1959 they had become Kbatedars as they were E 
owners in actual possession of the lands in question on the crucial date. 
For establishing possession they produced revenue records of jamabandis • 
. However, thejamabandi record closest to the date on which the Zamindari 
and Biswedari was abolished was not produced but oral evidence was 
adduced in lieu of that. The Assistant Collector allowed the suits. Appeals p 
filed by the State were dismissed by the Revenue Appellate Authority. 
State's second appeals to the Board of Revenue were also dismissed. 
Subsequently some outsiders filed an appeal. before the First Appellate 
Authority against the judgment and decree of Assistant Collector which 
was dismissed on the ground of locus standi. However,. on appeal, the 
Board of Revenue held that though oral. evidence might be useful for . G 
establishing possession it did not meet the requirements of Section 5(4) 
for which jamabandi record is relevanL Exercising its power of general 
superintendence under section 221 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 the 
Board set aside the decrees passed by the Assistant Collector and directed 
him to re-hear the suits after summoning the relevant jamabandi. The H 
221 
222 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993) SUPP. 3 S.C.R .. 
A 
appellants filed writ petitions before the High Court which were dismissed. 
Against the order of the High Court, appeals were filed in this court. 
Allowing the appeals and setting as id~ the orders of the High Court, 
this Co~rt, 
B 
HELD: 1. The Board of Revenue misapplied Section 221 in setting 
aside a confirmed order of the Trial Court. It could not have exercised 
power of general superintendence under Section 221 for it had beforehand 
in exercise of its appellate powers confirmed the decree of the Assistant 
Collector. By doctrine of merger, the judgment and decree of the first 
C 
Court got merged in that of the first appellate court and sequely oa second 
appeal that of the Board of Revenue. The order was reviewable subject to 
its falling under section 229 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. Section 221 
being not applicable, section 229 did nat come in the picture, it having not 
. 
. 
been invoked. In the circumstances, the Board assumed jurisdiction which 
it did not have to upset its own final judgment. Sequelly, the .High Court 
D 
too erred in approving the same when the jurisdiction error was glaring 
on the face of it. (225-C-FJ 
2. The salutary principle of appreciation of evidence in possessory 
matters is that when a state of affairs is shown to have existed for a long 
E 
course of time but a gap therein puts to doubt its continuity prudence 
tequires to lean in favour of the continuity of things especially when some 
plausible explanation of the gap is forthcoming. The trial court seems to 
have gone on that basis to decree in favour of the appellant, and so did 
the First Appellate Authority as also the Board of Revenue in second 
F 
G 
appeal. It was thus too late for the Board in ancilliary proceedings to find 
fault in the reasoning of the Trial Court. The High Court erred in not 
upsetting it. (226-A-B] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3039 of 
1981. 
From the Judgment and order dated 28.7.81 of the Rajasthan High 
Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 165/1977. 
With 
H 
Civil Appeal No. 3209of1983. 
• 
DEVI SINGH v. BOARD OF REVENUE 
223 
With 
A 
Civil Appeal No. 3210 of 1983. 
Suman Kapoor and Ms. Suma Rao, for the Appellant. 
B.D. Sharma, (N.P.) for the Respondents. 
B 
The following Order of the Court was delivered: 
These appeals are directed against a com

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