HARIHAR PRASAD SINGH AND ANOTHER versus MUST. OF MUNSHI NATH PRASAD AND OTHERS.

Citation: [1956] 1 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 16-01-1956 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VIVIAN BOSE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

THE SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
HARIHAR PRASAD SINGH AND ANOTHER 
1956 
v. 
MUST. OF MUNSHI NATH PRASAD 
AND OTHERS. 
[VIVIAN BosE, VENKATARAMA AYYAR and 
0HANDRASEKHARA AIYAR JJ.] 
Occupancy Right-If can be acquired by lessee from mortgagee-
Presumption of record of rights-How rebutted-Proprietor's private 
land-Mode of proof-Bihar Tenancy Act (VIII of 1885), ss. 5(3), 
21, 108-B, 120(2)-Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), s. 7C(a) 
-Evidence Act (I of 1872), a. 90. 
The appellants were the purchasers of the mortgagors' interests 
in the agricultural lands in suit and deposited the amounts due on 
the mortgages in court under s. 83 of the Transfer of Property Act, 
which were withdrawn by the representatives of the mortgagees and 
the 'mortgages were redeemed. 
They were obstructed in taking khe.s 
possession of the lands by tenants who were recorded e.s "settled 
raiyata" in the finally published record of rights and brought the 
suit for recovery of possession from the tenants and, e.lternatively, 
for ilamages against the representatives of the mortgagees. The sub· 
ordinate Judge found that the lands were the private lands of the 
proprietors and the tenants were inducted not by them but by the· 
modgagees in possession by a lease for a term which was neither bona 
fide nor binding on the appellants and passed a decree in ejectment. 
On appeal, the High Court held that the lands were not the private 
lands of the mortgagors, the lease was bona fide and the recognition 
of the lessees as tenants by the mortgagees confened on them rights 
of occupancy in the suit lands and dismissed the suit. The respon· 
dents relied on the presumptions under ss. 103-B and 120(2) of the 
Bihar Tenancy Act and contended that the recognition by the mart· 
go.gees of their tenancy right had the effect of conferring on them the 
rights of occupancy under the Act. 
Held, that .an entry in the record of rights published under s. 
103-A of the Bihar Tenancy Act does not create rights huh merely 
raisesa presumption under s. 103-B of the Act that such rights exist, 
which can be rebutted if it can be shown that the materials on which 
it was based do not justify it. 
Bogha Mow~r v. Ram Lakhan, ((1917) 27 Cal. L.J. 107) and 
Eakub Ali v. Muhammad Ali ((1928) 49 Cal. L.J. 352), referred to. 
That where, as in the present ca.se, no evidence was produced 
before the authority who made the record, one bas only to produce 
January 16 
1956 
Harihar Prasad 
Singh and another 
v. 
t.f11st. of M11nslii 
Nath Prasad 
and others 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1956] 
such evidence as satisfies the court in order to rebut the presump-
tion. This is equally true with regard to the presumption enacted 
bys. 120(2) of the Act with regard to the proprietor's private land. 
That s. 120 of the Bibar Tenancy Act merely enacts certain 
rules of evidence for determining whether a disputed land is the pro-
prietor's "private" land. It does not preclude the proprietor, even 
if he cannot prove that he cultivated the land as such for 12 years 
prior to the date of the Act, from adducing other evidence to show 
that the land is his private land. 
Kisho Prashad Singh v. Parmeshri Prasad Singh, ((1923] I.L.R. 
2 Pat. 414) and Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v. Kisho Prasad Singh 
([1926] L.R. 53 I.A. 164), relied on. 
That as the mortgagees were neither proprietors nor tenure-
holders as defined by the Bihar Tenancy Act, persons inducted by 
them could not be raiyats within the meaning of s. 5(3) of the Act 
so as to acquire any rights of occupancy under s. 21 of the Act. 
Mahabir Gope v. Harbans Narain Singh ([1952] S.C.R. 775). 
applied. 
Nor could the provisions of s. 76 (a) of the Transfer of Property 
Act ha of any avail. Assuming that the lease grantad by the mort-
gagees continuad oven altar termination of tho period fixed therain, 
that could confer on tho lassees no more than the status of tenants 
from ysar to yaar, in which case, their possession would cease with 
tho termination of the agricultural year during which the mortgages 
wera radaamed. 
Rajendra Nath v. Dinu Pradhan (A.I.R. 1930 Cal. 738), disap-
provad. 
Binod Lal Pakrashi v. Kal1t Pramanik ((1893] I.L.R. 20 Cal. 
708), doubted and hold inapplicable. 
Pramatha Nath v. Bashi Bhltsan (A.I.R. 1937 Cal. 763), <listing• 
uishad. 
Case-law discussed. 
Held further, that there is no presumption of genuineness in 
favour of certified copies of documents under s. 90 of the Evidence 
Act, nor does that section aut

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