LexVISHWA VIJAI BHARTI versus FAKHRUL HASAN & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
'- • ~ . • • , • • , 519 VISHWA VIJAI BHARTI v. FAKHRUL HASAN & ORS. May 4, 1976 [Y. V. CHANDRACHUD AND P. N. SHINGHAL, JJ.] Civil Procedure Code-Secs. 100-103-Powers of HiRh Court to set aside finding of facts in a second appeal-If High Court must discuss evidence while going into questions of facts. Entries in record of rights-Presumptive value of-Presumption if applies ta fdrged or fraudulent entries--Efject of -fraud or forgery on a document. Mahant Bharati of temple of Shankarji Maharaj gave lands belonging to the temple_ on lbeka to one Sukai for a period of 10 years. The Mabant obtained a decree for eviction against Sukai but it could not be executed because of the objectionc; raised by the respondents on the ground that they have been cultivat- ing the lands for several years and they were entitled to continue in po..§_session as Sirdars in spite of the decree against Sukai. The lessor, therefore, instituted two separate suits under Order 21 Rule 103, C.P.C. Respondents contended A B c inter a/ia, that they had become hereditary tenants and they must be deemed D to have become Adhivasis of the land. The trial court dismissed the suit. Tho district court reversed the finding of the trial court in appeal and held that the appellant being the Bhumidar of the lands was entitled to recover possession thereof from the respondents. The district Judge held that the entries in the record of rights showing the occupation of the respondents were fraudulent. The Hi$h Court in second appeal upset the decree of the district court . Allowing the appeal, HELD : (I) The only question before the High Court was whether the entries on which the respondents relied were genuine or fraudulent. This is a question of fact and the High Court had no jurisdiction to set aside the find- ing on that question in second appeal. The High Court erroneously assumed that 1he district Court had not given any finding on the question of fraud. The district Court had given at least half a dozen reasons for holding that the entries were fictitious and were made surreptitiously and fraudulently. [521H; 522A-H] (2) If the High Court thought that the district court had not recorded a clear finding on that issue and if the High Court were to determine under section 103 C.P.C. the issue under whether the entries were fraudulent or not i• was noc.essary for it to di6cuss the evidence. But, the High Court instead placed blind and easy reliance on the entries which are utterly uninspiring. [523A-B] (3) Entries in the revenue record ought generally to be accepted at their E F face value and courts should not embark upon an appellate enquiry into their G correctness. But the presumption of correctness can apply only to genuine, not forged or fraudulent entries. The distinction may be fine but it is real. Fraud and forgery rob a document of all its legal effect and cannot found a claim to possessory title. [523B-CJ ClvIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 1122 and 1123 of 1970. Appeals by special leave from the Judgment and order dated the 13th February 1970 of the Allahabad High Court in S.A. Nos. 267 and 268 of 1962. H A 520 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1976] SUPPLl!J.ll!NTARY S. C. Manchanda, S. K. Bagga, (Mrs.) Sureshta Bagga and (Ml.is) Y ash Bagga; for the Appellant. R. N. Sharma and C. P. Lal; for Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by B CHANDRACHUD, J .-These appeals by special leave arise ou• .cf c the judgment rendered by the High Court of Allahabad on February 13, 1970 in Second Appeals 267 and 268 of 1962. ·· Mahan! Vishwa Nath Bharthi, the sarbrahkar of the temple of Shankarji Maharaj, Khowja, gave lands belonging to the temple, ad- measuring about 44 acres, on Theka to one Snkai. The Thekanama was executed on June 5, 1942 to be effective from July 1, 1942. The lease was to enure for a period of 10 years and was due to expire on June 30, 1952. The Thekanama contained an express term that the Thekadar will not sub-let the leasehold property and that on the expiry of the period of lease he shall hand over the possession of the propert-,. to the lessor. D In spite of this term against sub-letting, on July 27, 1942 the lesaee executed a power of attorney in favour of his nephews Haqiqullah and Ghani, apparently authorising them to c.ultivate the lands on his be- half. On the expiry of the period of lease the Mahan! instituted a suit for ejectme
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.