IMPORTANT POINT
Mere statement of fact in a written statement is not a rebuttal of presumption of correctness of any entry in revenue record.

ORDER

One Smt. Bhagavva was the owner of Survey Plot Nos. 629/1 & 629/2. On 20th of December, 1972 Smt. Bhagavva executed an agreement 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respondent filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement for sale of the land but the same was allowed to be withdrawn.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 Karanataka. 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 Tribunal, 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, preferred 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 find 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 statement 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