STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH versus SH. KESHAV RAM AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 263 · Decided: 08-10-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH 
v. 
SH. KESHA V RAM AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 8, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
Evidence-Indian Evidence Act, 1872-Section-Entry in Revenue 
papers-Whether could create or extinguish title inf avour of the person con-
cerned-Held, No. 
A 
B 
c 
The respondents-Plaintiffs filed a suit for a declaration that they 
were the owners in possession of the suit land and for restraining the 
appellant from interfering with the possession of the respondents, alleging 
that the disputed land stood recorded in the settlement papers in the year 
1950 in the name of the State as the owner and when the plaintiffs made 
an application for correction, the Settlement Authority after holding a D 
detailed enquiry passed an order for correction and pursuant to the said 
order necessary correction was made in the register. Trial Court decreed 
the suit relying upon the order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer 
and holding that plaintiffs were the owners in possession of the land in 
dispute. ln appeal, the judgment and decree of the trial Court was con-
E 
firmed. The Second appeal was dismissed by the High Court solely relying 
upon the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer. State filed this appeal 
against the judgment of the High Court. 
The appellant contended that the very order of the Settlement Officer 
directing correction of the entry in record of right was not there on record. F 
and at any rate on the basis of the said order plaintifl's title to the disputed 
land could not have been declared as an entry in the settlement papers 
does not create or extinguish title and at the most has a presumptive value 
that on the date when entry was made the person concerned was in 
possession de the land and therefore, the courts below committed errors G. 
of law in declaring plaintiffs' title on the basis of the order of the Assistant 
Settlement Officer. 
The respondents contended that the plaintiffs title having been 
declared by the courts below on consideration of the entire materials on 
record, it would not be proper for this Court to interfere with the same in H 
263 
264 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 
I A exercise of power under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. 
The question raised for consideration was whether the entry in the 
Settlement papers recording somebody's name could create or extinguish 
title in favour of the person conc!!rned. 
B 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : The only piece of evidence on which the courts below relied 
upon to decree the plaintiffs' suit was the alleged order made by the 
Assistant Settlement Officer directing correction of the record of right. The 
C order in question was not there on record but the plaintiffs relied upon 
the register where the correction appeared to have given effect to. The 
. disputed land originally stood recorded in the name of Raja Sahib of 
Keonthal and thereafter the State was recorded to be the owner of the land 
in the record of right prepared in the year 1949-50. In the absence of the 
very order of the Assistant settlement Officer directing necessary correc-
D lion to be made in favour of the plaintiffs, it was not possible to visualize 
on what basis the aforesaid direction had been made. But at any rate such 
. an entry in the Revenue papers by no stretch of imagination could form 
the basis for declaration of title in favour of the plaintiffs. As to whether 
there was any other document on the basis of which the plaintiffs could 
E claim title over the disputed land, the plaintiffs - respondents could not 
point out any order document apart from the alleged correction made in 
the register pursuant to the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer. The 
courts below committed serious error of law in declaring plaintiffs' title 
on the basis of the aforesaid order of correction and the consequential 
F 
entry in the Revenue papers. (266-E-H; 267-A-B] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 12852 of 
. 1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 4.5.94 of the Himachal Pradesh 
G High Court in R.S.A. No. 122 of 1986. 
T. Sridharan and Anil Nag for the Appellant. 
Devendra Singh for the Respondents. 
H 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
STATEv. KESHAVRAM(PATTANAIK,J.] 
PATIANAIK, J~ Leave granted. 
265 
State of Himachal Pradesh has preferred this appeal against the 
judgment of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh dated 4.5.1994 in R.S.A. 
No. 122/86.· 
The respondents filed t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.