LexTIKKA RAM & ANR. versus KARTARA (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] B"S.C.R. 719 TIKKA RAM & ANR. A v. KARTARA (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS & ORS. (Civil Appeal No.6590 Of 2005) 14 MAY, 2008 B (DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P.SATHASIVAM, JJ.] Tenancy rights - Pre-emption - Suit for pre-emption claiming superior rights on the ground that plaintiffs were ten- ants for 12-13 years - Maintainability of - Held: Not maintain- c able as no lease deed or receipt of payment of rent put on record - Bald statement made by Vendor in an FIR that plain- tiffs were tenants would not be relevant for deciding issue of tenancy in civil proceedings - Oral evidence of neighbours, in the absence of documentary proof would not have value. D The Defendant No.1-Vendor sold the suit lands to de- fendant no. 2 and 3. The appellant$ filed suits for pre· emption and possession claiming their superior right on the ground that they were tenants for 12-13 years. The suits were dismissed. Plaintiff-preemptors filed appeal E which was allowed by the First Appellate Court. The ap- peal by vendees, was allowed by High Court. The question for consideration in these appeals is whether appellants-plaintiff could be held to be the ten- F ants based on the evidence and materials on record. The appellants relied on the oral evidence of PW9, PW10 and PW11, neighbours. In addition to the same, they also re- lied on the specific statement made by the vendor in the complaint (FIR) to the police to the effect that the plain· • tiffs were in possession of the suit lands as tenants . G Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.Though the appellants-plaintiffs have claimed their possession as tenants for the last 12-15 719 H 720 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 8 S.C.R. A years, admittedly, no pattanama (lease deed) has been produced. There is no explanation at all as to why no pattanama has ever been executed. There was no receipt of payment batai for any of the year though they claimed that they.were in possession of the land for more than 12- 8 15 years. Further, the records show that the change of Khasra Girdhawaris was made only in the year 1978 showing their possession as tenants from Kharif 1976 to Rabi 1978 and the said order was passed by the Assis- tant Collector llnd Grade on 11.07 .1979. Since the said c order came to be passed without notice to anyone includ- ing the vendor admittedly the order of the Assistant Col- lector effecting changes in Khasra Girdhawaris was set aside by the Collector and the case has been remanded for taking fresh decision. No further change has been ef- D fected in the revenue records by the authority concerned. It is clear that though Khasra Girdhawaris were corrected for the first time in the year 1978 ;n view of the fact that the same was set aside by the higher authority and in the ab- sence of any subsequent order no importance need be given for the same. [Para 10] [725-C-G] E Jagadeesh & Anr. v. State of Kamataka & Ors. JT 2 O O 8 (2) SC 308 - relied on. 2 .. The High Court rightly held that a bald statement in a complaint to the police in respect of certain incident F is not a relevant factor for deciding the issue of tenancy in a civil proceeding. At the most, it can only be used for corroborating or contradicting its maker when he appears in court as a witness. The FIR was given by a person aged about 2.0/22 years. It further shows that at that time he was G studying in B.A. 1st year. In the whole of the complaint, he made only one solitary statement stating that "this land was under the tenancy of appellant". Except the above reference, there were no other details such as when ap- pellant was inducted as tenant, extent of land etc. In such H circumstances, in the absence·of any other corrobora- • -· TIKKA RAM & ANR. v. KARTARA (DECEASED) 721 THROUGH LRS & ORS. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.] tive evidence, reference in the FIR can never be treated A as a substantive piece of evidence in a civil proceeding. [Para 12] [727-A,B,C] 3. The contention that the counsel of vendees had made a statement on 13.06.1979 to the effect that the vend- ees would not dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit land B except in due course of law, which amounted to his ad- mission that the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit land on the date of sale of the land to the vendees is re- jected. High Court rightly held that from the statement of the counsel, it cannot be construed that the parties have C admitted the status of the plaintiffs as ten
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.