HIRA LAL AND ANOTHER versus GAJJAN AND OTHERS

Citation: [1990] 1 S.C.R. 164 · Decided: 30-01-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.N. SAIKIA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
HIRA LAL AND ANOTHER 
v. 
GAJJAN AND OTHERS 
JANUARY 30, 1990 
B 
(K.N. SAIKIA AND M. FATHIMA BEEVI, JJ.] 
U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950: Section 
20(b)(i)-Adhivasi rights-Khasra entry-Acceptance of-No enqui-
ries into possession-Assumption as to correctness-Rebuttal-Burden 
C ofproof. 
Code of Civil Procedure 1908: Section JOO-Circumstances 
under which High Court could reappreciate evidence and come to its 
own independent conclusion. 
D 
The plaintiff-respondent claimed that before the U.P. Zamindari 
Abolition and Land Refoms Act, 1950 came into force, his father was a 
sub-tenant under defendants 3 to 25 and after his father's death, the 
other 3 sons separated from· the plaintiff and consequently he has 
become the sole-tenant. According to him, his father was recorded 
oecupant of Khasra 1356 Fasli (I.7.1948 to 30.6.1949) and was in 
E cultivatory possession in Khasra 1359 Fasli (1.7.1951to30.6.1952) as a 
result of which he had acquired adhivasi rights and sirdari rights, and 
the rights of defendants 3 to 25 extinguished under section 240-A of the 
said Act. He alleged that in 1968, defenda.nts 1 and 2 obtained fictitious 
sale deed from defendants Nos. 3 to 25 in respect of the said land and started 
interfering with his possession. He, therefore, filed a suit for permanent 
F 
injunction. The suit was contested by some of the defendants who 
pleaded that neither the plaintiff nor his father was in possession of the 
said land at. any point of time and there was no question of sub-tenancy 
or acquiring of adhivasi/sirdari rights. The trial court dismissed the 
suit. The appeal preferred by the plaintiff-respondent was dismissed by 
the first appellant court. 
G 
The trial court as also the first appellate court held that the 
respondent was not entitled to become an adhivasi under section 
20(b )(i) of the Act since his father died in 1951 before the date of vesting 
'"< 
i.e. I.7 .1952. Both the courts also held that his father was not in 
cultivatory possession of Khasra 1359 Fasli and, therefore, h.e could not 
H 
get ,adhivasi rights under section 3 of the U.P. Land Reforms \Supple-
164 
, 
t 
l 
t' 
HIRA LAL v. GAJJAN 
165 
.mentary) Act, 1952. It was also held that there was no contract or 
sub-teqancy in the name of his father. 
The plaintiff-respondent preferred an appeal before the High 
Court which allowed the appeal and granted a decree reversing the 
decision of the courts below. 
Aggrieved, the appellants have filed the present appeal contending 
inter alia that since there were concurrent findings of facts by the trial 
court and the first appellate court, and in the absence of any substantial 
question of law, the High Court had no jurisdiction under section 100 
C.P.C. to disturb the concurrent findings of facts. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD: 1. Section IOO(l)(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure refers 
to a substantial error or defect in the procedure. The error or defect in 
A 
B 
c 
the procedure to which the clause refers is not an error or defect in the 
appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties on the merits. Even .if o 
the appreciation of evidence made is patently erroneous and the finding 
of fact recorded in~ consequence is grossly_ erroneous, that cannot ·be said 
to introduce a substantial error or defect in the procedure. If in dealing 
with a question of fact the lower appellate court has placed the onus on 
wrong party and its finding of fact is the result substantially of this 
wrong approach that may be regarded as a defect in procedure. When 
);:: 
the first appellate court discarded the evidence as inadmissible and the 
' 
High Court is satisfied that the evidence was admissible that may intro-
duce an error or defect in procedure. So also in a case where the court 
below ignored the weight of evidence and allowed the judgment to be 
influenced by inconseqnent matters, the High Court would be justified 
in reappreciating the evidence and coming to its own independent 
F 
decision. [I68H; 169A-C] 
Madan La/v. Gopi, AIR 1980 SC 1754 relied on. 
V. Ramachandra Ayyar & Anr. v. Ramalingam Chettiar & Anr., 
AIR 1963 SC-302 referred to. 
G 
2. Section 20(b)(i) of the Act eliminates enquiries into possession 
in accepting the record in the Khasra. In the instant case the Khasra 
entry for 1356 Fasli showed that the appellant's father was the sub-
tenant. It is not for the appellant to prove that this entry is incorrect. It 
was for the de

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