Himachal Land Revenue Act, 1954: ss. 32(2)(a) , 34 – Recordof-rights and periodical record – Presumption in favour of entries therein – Rebuttal of – Held: Presumption of truth attached to the record-of-rights can be rebutted only if there is a fraud in the entry or the entry was surreptitiously made or that prescribed procedure was not followed – Reliance cannot be placed on the oral evidence to rebut the statutory presumption as the credibility of oral evidence vis-a-vis documentary evidence is at a much weaker level – Burden of proving relationship of tenancy is on the person who asserts such a relationship as per s. 109 of the Evidence Act – On facts, no relationship of landlord and tenant is mentioned in the revenue record – In the absence of entry in the revenue record, which is also expected to contain the entry of rent and possession, the tenancy cannot be treated to be in existence only on the basis of oral evidence – Burden of proving the relationship was on the defendant – Presumption of truth attached to the revenue record can be rebutted only on the basis of evidence of impeccable integrity and reliability – Defendant failed to rebut the presumption of truth on the basis of reliable, trustworthy and cogent documentary evidence to prove the relationship of a tenant – High Court erred in allowing the defendant’s appeal relying upon oral evidence to rebut the statutory presumption of truth attached to the revenue record – Order of the High Court is set aside and the judgment passed by the first appellate court is upheld.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 As per Section 32(2)(a) of the Himachal Land Revenue Act, 1954, record-of-rights, i.e. Jamabandi, shall include the name of persons who are landowners, tenants or assignees of land revenue and also the rent, land revenue, rates, cesses or other payments due from and to each of those persons and to the Government. On the other hand, the periodical record, i.e. Khasra Girdawari, as mentioned in Section 34 of the Act, is to be prepared every year as the proof of the statements, as mentioned in subsection (2) clause (a) of Section 32, which includes the name of the landowners, tenants and the rent and land revenue payable. In terms of Section 45 of the 1954 Act, the record-of-rights as prepared in terms of Sections 32 and 34 of the 1954 Act carries a presumption of truth. Still further, any person who is aggrieved by any entry in the record-of-rights or in a periodical record has a right to invoke the jurisdiction of the Civil Court for correction of the entries in terms of Section 46 of the 1954 Act. [Para 15][703E-F]
1.2 The detailed procedure for recording of periodical record-of-rights as well as the record-of-rights in terms of Sections
32 & 34 of the 1954 Act has been prescribed. The record-ofrights contains entries of the revenue record for the four years. Such record-of-rights carries the presumption of correctness in terms of Section 45 of the 1954 Act and also Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, 18721. Section 109 of the Evidence Act further contemplates that whether there exists a relationship of landowner and tenant and the burden of proving such a relationship is on the person who affirms it. [Para 16][703-G-H; 704-A]
1.3 In the State of Himachal Pradesh, Jamabandi, under Section 32 of the 1954 Act as well as Khasra Girdawari, under Section 34 of 1954 Act, both are record-of-rights in terms of Section 32 of the 1954 Act, and have statutory presumption of truth. [Para 17][704-E-F]
1.4 The instant is a case where no relationship of landlord and tenant is mentioned in the revenue record though required in terms of Section 32(2)(a) of 1954 Act. In the absence of entry in the revenue record, which is also expected to contain the entry of rent and possession, the tenancy cannot be treated to be in existence only on the basis of oral evidence of the witnesses examined by the defendant. The burden of proving the relationship was on the defendant. Such burden cannot be said to be rebutted only by oral evidence. The witnesses may lie but the documents do not, is a golden rule. The presumption of truth attached to the revenue record can be rebutted only on the basis of evidence of impeccable integrity and reliability. The oral evidence can always be adduced contrary to the revenue record but such oral testimony will not be sufficient to hold that the statutory presumption stands rebutted. The presumption of truth attached to the record-of-rights can be rebutted only if there is a fraud in the entry or the entry was surreptitiously made or that prescribed procedure was not followed. It will not be proper to rely on the oral evidence to rebut the statutory presumption as the credibility of oral evidence vis-a-vis documentary evidence is at a much weaker level. [Paras 18, 24][705-D-F; 707-G]
1.5 The High Court erred in law in allowing the defendant’s appeal relying upon oral evidence to rebut the statutory presumption of truth attached to the revenue record. The onus of proof was placed on the defendant by the trial court. The burden is on the person who asserts such a relationship as per Section
109 of the Evidence Act. The defendant has failed to rebut the presumption of truth on the basis of reliable, trustworthy and cogent documentary evidence to prove the relationship of a tenant. The order of the High Court is set aside and the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court is affirmed. [Paras 25, 26][708-A-C]
Vishwa Vijai Bharti v. Fakhrul Hasan & Ors. (1976) 3 SCC 642; Bhimappa Channappa Kapali (Dead) by LRS. v. Bhimappa Satyappa Kamagouda (Dead) by LRS. and Others (2012) 13 SCC 759; Guru Amarjit Singh v. Rattan Chand and Others AIR 1994 SC 227 – relied on.
Harish Chander and Others v. Ghisa Ram and Another (1981) 1 SCC 431; Sodhi Transport Co. and Others v. State of U.P. and Others (1986) 2 SCC 486; Kumar Exports v. Sharma Carpets (2009) 2 SCC 513 –
referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.