LexSITA RAM BHAU PATIL versus RAMCHANDRA NAGO PATIL (DEAD) BY L.RS. & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
671 SITA RAM BHAU PATIL v. RAMCHANDRA NAGO PATIL (DEAD) BY L. Rs. & ANR. January 20, 1977 [A. N. RAY, C.J., M. H. BEG AND P. s. KAILASAM, JI.] ) Bombay Tenancy &: Agricultural Lands Act 1948-Sec. 16-Power of j ~· ,~ Revenue Tribunal to interfere with findings of fact. llldian Evidence A.ct-Sec. 17-Admissibi/ity and relevance af vrevious ad111is.io11-E11tries in record of right-Presumptive value. The appellant was owner of the suit land. The appellant's wife sold this land to respondent No 1. Thereafter, 1he appellant made an application under s. 70(b) of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, for a declaration that ht< was a tenant of two of the 4 plots of the land. The dis- pute went up to the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal who rejected the claim of the appellant to tenancy. Thereafter, the respondent filed an application under section 70(b) of the said Act praying for a declaration that the appellant was not a tenant in respect of the remaining two survey numbers also. The res- pondent alleged that he never leased the land to the (lppellant and that he came to know of the entry of the record of rights for the year 1955-56 on the strength of mutation alleged to have been made on 30.1.1966. The respondent was cross-examined and it was suggested to him that he had made an admis- sion in previous deposition although the said. deposition was not shown to the re~pondent. After the cross-examination of the respondent was over, a certified copy of the said deposition was placed on record. Thereafter the appellant was examined and he relied on the extract of the record of rights. The Mamlatdar rejected the claim of the appellant to be a tenant which was confirmed by the Deputy Collector. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal held in exercise of its revisional powers that the appellant was proved to be a tenant of the land and set aside the concurrent. findings of the two authorities below. In a writ petition filed by the respondent under Art. 227 of the Constitution the High Courts set aside the order of ihe Revenue Tribunal. Dismissing the appeal by Special Leave, HELD : 1. Admission on which reliance has been placed by the appellant suffers from 3 infirmities : (i) Earlier deposition related to two different survey numbers. What- ever was stated about another survey number is irrelevant and in- admissible. Since under s. 17 of the Indian Evidence Act an admis- sion is a statement, oral or documentary, which suggests any infe- rence· as to any fact in issue or relevant fact. (ii) In fact there was no admission in the earlier proceedings; and . (iii) The deposition was not brought to the notice of respondent when he was being cross-examined. Privy Council has laid down in the case of Bal Gangadhar Tilak that before any person is to be faced with any statemeat he should be given an opportunity to see that statement and to answer the atatement. [673 E, 674 A-C, 675 A-El Bal Gancadhar Tilak v. Sltri11ivu P«niit 42 Indian Appeals 135 at pa2e 147, applied. 2. There is a presumption abput the correctness of the record of rights. However, there is no abstract principle that whatever will appear in the Record of Rights will be presumed to be correct. In the present case it is ihown by evidence that the entries are not correct. [676 B-DJ A B c D E F G H 672 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1977) 2 S.C.R. A 3. Under section 76 of the Act power of Tribunal to interfere is limited. c D E r G H There was no error of law on the face of the record. If the authority entrusted with. adjudication goes into the question and assesse~ the same, the decision may be nght or wrong but that will not go to show that there is any error of law on the face of record. [676 E, 677 A-Bl CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1997 of 1968. Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 13th February, 1968 of the Bombay High Court in Special Civil Appli- cation No. 643 of 1967. B. N. Lokur and A. G. Ratnaparkhi for the Appellant. S. V. Gupte, R. B. Datar and Sanjeev Kumar for Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAY, C.J. This appeal by special leave is from the judgment dated 13 February 1968 of the High Court of Bombay. The appellant was owner of land covered by Survey No. 201/2, 194/13, 200/29 and 194/15. The appellant's wife sold this land to respondent No. 1 on 14 June 1946. On 12 April 1962 the appellant made an applica
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.