2001 Supreme(SC) 768

2001(3) Supreme 520
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Karnataka High Court)
Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri & S.N. Variava, JJ.
S. Venkatappa -Appellant
versus
Narayanappa & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2953 of 1997
Decided on 25-4-2001
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Shantha Kumar V. Mahale and K.K. Gupta, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Ms. Kiran Suri and Sanjay R. Hegde, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
The High Court disbelieved the oral testimony and the Revenue Records on the basis of statements in the sale agreements which is not sustainable in law. Sale agreements between private parties may contain any averments. These averments have no presumptive value but entries in revenue records have presumptive value. The facts in sale agreements have to be proved.

Headnote:Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961-Section 2(34)-Definition of tenant-Section 2(11)-Meaning to cultivate personally -Section 2(12) -Meaning of Family -Appellant making an application in Form No. 7 claiming occupancy rights under the provisions of amended Sections 44 and 45 of the Act-Respondents filed objections-Land Tribunal as well as Appellate Authority held that appellant was a tenant of the land on the appointed day i.e. 1st March, 1974-Finding based on R.T.C. record of rights and tenancy and Pahani for the concerned area and on oral evidence-High Court on revision reversed the concurrent findings on the basis of recital in two sale deeds to which appellant was an attesting witness-Whether High Court was correct? (No)-Appeal allowed-Order of Land Tribunal and Appellate Authority restored.

       Held : In support of his claim Appellant had relied upon R.T.C. record of rights and tenancy and Pahani for the concerned area. This showed that from 1965 to 1970 the Appellant was cultivating the land as "Wara" i.e. a tenant. This record also showed Muniyamma as self cultivator for the years 1970-71. It could not be disputed that no enquiry, as contemplated under the Act, had taken place before such a change was made in the records. The record again shows in 1973-74 and 1974-75 the name of the Appellant but as a "Swantha", i.e. a cultivator. Apart from these the Appellant gave oral evidence of his own tenancy firstly under one Sri Narayanappa, who was the owner before Muniyamma, then under Muniyamma and thereafter under Munivenkate Gowda. Munivenkate Gowda also gave evidence. He confirmed that the Appellant was a tenant under him and had been paying him rent by giving a share in the crop. The Appellant and Munivenkate Gowda proved certain rent receipts for the period 1972 to 1975. Munivenkate Gowda accepted the fact that he had received the rent and that he had issued those rent receipts. Thus the Revenue Records showed that the Appellant as a tenant from 1965 to 1970. Thereafter, the Revenue Records showed during the years 1972 to 1974 the name of the Appellant as a self cultivator. Admitted that entry would be wrong because during this period Munivenkate Gowda was the owner of the land. The entries show the presence of the Appellant on the land as a tenant upto 1970. The evidence of Munivenkate Gowda, establishes that the Appellant was a tenant till 1975. On the above evidence, oral and documentary both the Land Tribunal as well as the Appellate Authority had, on the material before them, held that the Appellant was a tenant of the land on the appointed day i.e. 1st March, 1974. The High Court, however, upset the concurrent findings of fact, in its revisional jurisdiction, only on the basis that the Sale Agreements of 1971 i.e. from Muniyamma to Munivenkate Gowda and in the Sale Agreement of 1976 i.e. from Munivenkate Gowda to Respondents 1 and 2, it was mentioned that vacant possession had been given to the purchasers and that the Appellant had attested both the Agreements. The High Court also relied, without further proof, on the statement in both the Sale Agreements that Appellant was the grandson of Muniyamma. Only on the basis of the averments in the Sale Deeds the High Court disbelieved the Revenue Records, even though they raised a presumption that what was stated thereon was correct. The High Court disbelieved the oral testimony and the Revenue Records only on basis of statements in the sale Agreements. In our view the reasoning of the High Court cannot be sustained at all. Sale Agreements between private parties may contain any averments. Those averments have no presumptive value. The facts stated therein have to be proved. Respondents 1 and 2 had tendered no further or other evidence of the relevant period. They tendered no evidence which rebutted the presumption which arose from the Revenue Records. The testimony of the Appellant and Munivenkate Gowda was believed by the Trial Court which had the advantage of seeing the demeanor of the witnesses. Their testimony was supported by Revenue Records and rent receipts. The first Appellant Court had also accepted that evidence. Without any justification, the High Court chose to disbelieve that evidence. From the statements in the two Agreements the High Court presumed that Appellant could not be a tenant as he was grandson of Muniyamma. This was entirely erroneous. Even if Appellant was a grandson, he could still be a tenant as he is not a member of the family of Muniyamma within the meaning of the term in Section 2(12). Also cultivation by Appellant would not amount to Muniyamma having cultivated personally within the definition under Section 2(11). The two Agreements do not mention that there is no tenant on the land. In our view, the impugned Judgment cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. The Orders of the Land Tribunal and the first Appellate Court are restored. The Appeal stands disposed of accordingly. There will be no Order as to costs. (Paras 11, 12, 13 & 14)