Karewwa and Others Vs. Hussensab Khansaheb Wajantri & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 2273 of 1994
Petitioner: Karewwa and Others
Respondent: Hussensab Khansaheb Wajantri & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 2273 of 1994
Judges: V.N. KHARE & S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Mar 01, 2001
Head Note:
LAND AND TENANCY
Karnataka Land Reforms Act (As amended on 1.3.1974)
Occupant tenants – Rights – Agreement to sell on 20.12.72 with one ‘H’ – Said ‘H’ suing for specific performance, but later withdrawing – Amended Act coming into force – ‘H’ then moving in 1975 for giving him occupancy rights – Application rejected – High Court in writ remanding matter to decide after taking evidence – Mean-while a suit for possession by owner dismissed in default – After remand, one ‘K’ purchasing land from owner – Appropriate ap-pellate authority finding ‘H’ to be tenant – ‘K’ claiming posses-sion of ‘H’ on basis of agreement to sell as admitted by ‘H’ in written statement – Said written statement however, never filed in Court. Held that such written statement cannot be looked into. Appeal dismissed. (Para 2)
Evidence Act, 1872
Section 114 – Presumptions – Rebutted – Presumption of entries in revenue record as to correctness – If stands rebutted by a mere statement in pleadings in suit. Held that presumption is not rebutted by statement in written statement. (Para 3)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. One Smt. Bhagavva was the owner of Survey Plot Nos. 629/1 & 629/2. On 20th of December, 1972 Smt. Bhagavva executed an agree-ment in favour of respondent no. 1 for sale of the aforesaid land for consideration of a sum of Rs. 11,500/-. The appellant alleged that the respondent came into possession upon the said land in pursuance of the said agreement. Subsequently the respondent filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement for sale of the land but the same was allowed to be withdrawn. On 1st of March, 1974 amended Karnataka Land Reforms Act came into force. In the year 1975, the 1st respondent herein filed an application in Form 7 before the land Tribunal for giving him occupancy rights in respect of the said land. The said application was rejected on 6th of October, 1985. Thereafter, Smt. Bhagavva filed a suit for recovery of possession of the said land, which was dismissed in default. It appears that after the respondent’s application for grant of occupancy right was rejected by the Land Tribunal, he filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka. The High Court despite delay, entertained the petition and set aside the order of the Land Tribunal and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for deciding the case afresh after taking the evidence. Upon the matter being remanded to the Land Tribun-al, the appellant purchased the land from Smt. Bhagavva through a registered sale deed. The Tribunal after remand, permitted the parties to lead evidence and after fresh inquiry rejected the claim of respondent no. 1. Respondent no. 1, thereafter, pre-ferred an appeal before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal found that 1st respondent was a tenant of the land on the relevant date and, therefore, has acquired occupancy rights. Consequently, the appeal was allowed. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent filed a revision petition before the High Court but the same was dismissed. Against the said order, the appellant has filed this appeal.
2. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, on the strength of the written statement filed by respondent no. 1 in Suit No. OS 19 of 1977 urged, that in view of admission by respondent no. 1 that he entered into possession over the land in dispute on the basis of agreement for sale, he cannot be treated as a tenant of the land and, therefore, judgment under challenge deserves to be set aside. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent urged that the written statement sought to be relied upon was not filed before the courts below and was never formed part of the record of the case and, therefore, such a document cannot be looked into. We have looked into the record and found that the written statement sought to be relied upon by the appellant’s Counsel was not filed before the courts below, and the courts below had no occasion to consider the case of the party in the light of the said document. Under such circumstances, the said written state-ment cannot be permitted to be taken on record of the case. We are, therefore, not deposed to entertain the argument of learned Counsel for the appellant based on the written statement, which has been filed for the first time in this appeal.
3. Learned Counsel then urged that presumption of the correctness of an entry in the revenue record is a rebuttable presumption. The appellant rebutted the presumption by stating in his written statement that respondent no. 1 came into possession of the land on the basis of agreement for sale executed in the year 1972 and, therefore, the entry in the revenue record that the respondent was a tenant of the land in the year 1973 is incorrect. We do not dispute the legal position as stated by the learned Counsel for the appellant, but the presumption of correctness of an entry in revenue record cannot be rebutted by a statement in the written statement. Mere statement of fact in the written statement is not a rebuttal of presumption of correctness of an entry in the revenue record. The respondent was recorded as a tenant in the revenue record in the year 1973 and under law the presumption is that the entry is correct. It was for the appellant to rebut the presumption by leading evidence. The appellant has not led any evidence to show that entry in the revenue record is incorrect. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the contention.
4. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in this appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. There shall be no or-der as to costs.
1. One Smt. Bhagavva was the owner of Survey Plot Nos. 629/1 & 629/2. On 20th of December, 1972 Smt. Bhagavva executed an agree-ment in favour of respondent no. 1 for sale of the aforesaid land for consideration of a sum of Rs. 11,500/-. The appellant alleged that the respondent came into possession upon the said land in pursuance of the said agreement. Subsequently the respondent filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement for sale of the land but the same was allowed to be withdrawn. On 1st of March, 1974 amended Karnataka Land Reforms Act came into force. In the year 1975, the 1st respondent herein filed an application in Form 7 before the land Tribunal for giving him occupancy rights in respect of the said land. The said application was rejected on 6th of October, 1985. Thereafter, Smt. Bhagavva filed a suit for recovery of possession of the said land, which was dismissed in default. It appears that after the respondent’s application for grant of occupancy right was rejected by the Land Tribunal, he filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka. The High Court despite delay, entertained the petition and set aside the order of the Land Tribunal and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for deciding the case afresh after taking the evidence. Upon the matter being remanded to the Land Tribun-al, the appellant purchased the land from Smt. Bhagavva through a registered sale deed. The Tribunal after remand, permitted the parties to lead evidence and after fresh inquiry rejected the claim of respondent no. 1. Respondent no. 1, thereafter, pre-ferred an appeal before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal found that 1st respondent was a tenant of the land on the relevant date and, therefore, has acquired occupancy rights. Consequently, the appeal was allowed. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent filed a revision petition before the High Court but the same was dismissed. Against the said order, the appellant has filed this appeal.
2. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, on the strength of the written statement filed by respondent no. 1 in Suit No. OS 19 of 1977 urged, that in view of admission by respondent no. 1 that he entered into possession over the land in dispute on the basis of agreement for sale, he cannot be treated as a tenant of the land and, therefore, judgment under challenge deserves to be set aside. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent urged that the written statement sought to be relied upon was not filed before the courts below and was never formed part of the record of the case and, therefore, such a document cannot be looked into. We have looked into the record and found that the written statement sought to be relied upon by the appellant’s Counsel was not filed before the courts below, and the courts below had no occasion to consider the case of the party in the light of the said document. Under such circumstances, the said written state-ment cannot be permitted to be taken on record of the case. We are, therefore, not deposed to entertain the argument of learned Counsel for the appellant based on the written statement, which has been filed for the first time in this appeal.
3. Learned Counsel then urged that presumption of the correctness of an entry in the revenue record is a rebuttable presumption. The appellant rebutted the presumption by stating in his written statement that respondent no. 1 came into possession of the land on the basis of agreement for sale executed in the year 1972 and, therefore, the entry in the revenue record that the respondent was a tenant of the land in the year 1973 is incorrect. We do not dispute the legal position as stated by the learned Counsel for the appellant, but the presumption of correctness of an entry in revenue record cannot be rebutted by a statement in the written statement. Mere statement of fact in the written statement is not a rebuttal of presumption of correctness of an entry in the revenue record. The respondent was recorded as a tenant in the revenue record in the year 1973 and under law the presumption is that the entry is correct. It was for the appellant to rebut the presumption by leading evidence. The appellant has not led any evidence to show that entry in the revenue record is incorrect. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the contention.
4. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in this appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. There shall be no or-der as to costs.
