PARTAP SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ORS. versus SHIV RAM (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.

Citation: [2020] 1 S.C.R. 694 · Decided: 20-02-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
694
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
SHRI PARTAP SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.
v.
SHIV RAM (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.
(Civil Appeal No. 1511 of 2020)
FEBRUARY 20, 2020
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Himachal Land Revenue Act, 1954: ss. 32(2)(a) , 34 – Record-
of-rights and periodical record – Presumption in favour of entries
therein – Rebuttal of – Held: Presumption of truth attached to the
record-of-rights can be rebutted only if there is a fraud in the entry
or the entry was surreptitiously made or that prescribed procedure
was not followed – Reliance cannot be placed on the oral evidence
to rebut the statutory presumption as the credibility of oral evidence
vis-a-vis documentary evidence is at a much weaker level – Burden
of proving relationship of tenancy is on the person who asserts
such a relationship as per s. 109 of the Evidence Act – On facts, no
relationship of landlord and tenant is mentioned in the revenue record
– In the absence of entry in the revenue record, which is also
expected to contain the entry of rent and possession, the tenancy
cannot be treated to be in existence only on the basis of oral evidence
– Burden of proving the relationship was on the defendant –
Presumption of truth attached to the revenue record can be rebutted
only on the basis of evidence of impeccable integrity and reliability
– Defendant failed to rebut the presumption of truth on the basis of
reliable, trustworthy and cogent documentary evidence to prove
the relationship of a tenant – High Court erred in allowing the
defendant’s appeal relying upon oral evidence to rebut the statutory
presumption of truth attached to the revenue record – Order of the
High Court is set aside and the judgment passed by the first appellate
court is upheld.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 As per Section 32(2)(a) of the Himachal Land
Revenue Act, 1954, record-of-rights, i.e. Jamabandi, shall include
the name of persons who are landowners, tenants or assignees
of land revenue and also the rent, land revenue, rates, cesses or
694
   [2020] 1 S.C.R. 694
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
695
other payments due from and to each of those persons and to the
Government. On the other hand, the periodical record, i.e. Khasra
Girdawari, as mentioned in Section 34 of the Act, is to be prepared
every year as the proof of the statements, as mentioned in sub-
section (2) clause (a) of Section 32, which includes the name of
the landowners, tenants and the rent and land revenue payable.
In terms of Section 45 of the 1954 Act, the record-of-rights as
prepared in terms of Sections 32 and 34 of the 1954 Act carries a
presumption of truth. Still further, any person who is aggrieved
by any entry in the record-of-rights or in a periodical record has
a right to invoke the jurisdiction of the Civil Court for correction
of the entries in terms of Section 46 of the 1954 Act. [Para 15][703-
E-F]
1.2 The detailed procedure for recording of periodical
record-of-rights as well as the record-of-rights in terms of Sections
32 & 34 of the 1954 Act has been prescribed. The record-of-
rights contains entries of the revenue record for the four years.
Such record-of-rights carries the presumption of correctness in
terms of Section 45 of the 1954 Act and also Section 35 of the
Indian Evidence Act, 18721. Section 109 of the Evidence Act
further contemplates that whether there exists a relationship of
landowner and tenant and the burden of proving such a relationship
is on the person who affirms it. [Para 16][703-G-H; 704-A]
1.3 In the State of Himachal Pradesh, Jamabandi, under
Section 32 of the 1954 Act as well as Khasra Girdawari, under
Section 34 of 1954 Act, both are record-of-rights in terms of
Section 32 of the 1954 Act, and have statutory presumption of
truth. [Para 17][704-E-F]
1.4 The instant is a case where no relationship of landlord
and tenant is mentioned in the revenue record though required
in terms of Section 32(2)(a) of 1954 Act. In the absence of entry
in the revenue record, which is also expected to contain the entry
of rent and possession, the tenancy cannot be treated to be in
existence only on the basis of oral evidence of the witnesses
examined by the defendant. The burden of proving the relationship
was on the defendant. Such burden cannot be said to be rebutted
only by oral evidence. The witnesses may lie but the documents
SHRI PARTAP SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ORS. v.
SHIV RAM (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
696
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[202

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