Judgment

RAY, C.J.I. :- This appeal by special leave is from the judgment dated 13 February, 1968 of the High Court of Bombay.

2. The appellant was owner of land covered by Survey Nos 201/2, 194/13. 200/29 and 194/15. The appellants wife sold this land to respondent No. 1 on 14 June 1946.

3. On 12 April 1962 the appellant made an application under S. 70 (b) of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act (hereinafter referred to as the Bombay Act) for a declaration that he was a tenant of two of the four plots of land namely, Survey Nos. 194/15 and 200/29. This dispute between the appellant and the respondent in regard to alleged tenancy claim for these two survey numbers went up to the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The Tribunal by order dated 19 March, 1954 rejected the claim of the appellant to tenancy in respect of the land covered by Survey Nos. 200/29 ad 194/15.

4. Thereafter the respondent filed an application on 24 January 1963 under Section 70 (b) of the Bombay Act for a declaration that the appellant was not tenant of the remaining two Survey Nos. 201/2 and 194/13. The respondent alleged that he never leased the land to the appellant. The respondent further said that he came to know about entry in the record or rights for the years 1955-56 on the strength of mutation alleged to have been made on 30 January 1956 and sanctioned on 13 November 1956. This application of the respondent was resisted by the appellant on the ground that he was tenant of these two survey Nos. 201/2 and 194/13.

5. The matter was heard by the Mamlatdar. By an order dated 31 July 1963 the Mamlatdar rejected the claim of the appellant to be a tenant. Thereafter the matter was taken up to the District Deputy Collector. The Deputy Collector by his order dated 27 June 1966 upheld the Mamlatdars order. Before the Mamlatdar and the Deputy Collector the respondent examined himself. He was cross-examined and his attention was drawn in cross-examination towards an alleged admission about the appellant being his tenant in the deposition recorded by the Tenancy Aval Karkun in an earlier case on 10 September 1962. The respondent denied that he made any admission. The previous deposition was not shown to him on that day.

6. On 9 July 1963 a certified copy of the deposition in the earlier proceedings was placed on record. On that very day the appellant examination himself, saying that he was a tenant of the land and he had no other evidence to show in support of his case except the certified copy of the statement which was produced on that day.

7. The appellant also relied on the extracts of the record of rights showing that the respondent was shown as "kabiedar" of Survey No. 201/2 and the appellant was shown as tenant of the same In regard to Survey No. 194/13 it also appeared from the record of rights that the respondent was shown as kabjedar and the appellant as a tenant.

8. On this evidence the Mamlatdar held that the appellant was not cultivating the lands as a tenant of the respondent and he declared that the appellant was not a tenant. The Deputy Collector affirmed the order of the Mamlatdar.

9. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal however by its order dated 19 January 1967 held that the appellant was proved to be a tenant of the land. The respondent thereupon took the matter to the High Court under Art. 227. The High Court set aside the order of the Revenue Tribunal. The appellant obtained special leave from this Court.

10. On behalf of the appellant three contentions were advanced. First, that the respondent was bound by his admission that the appellant is a tenant. Second, there is a presumption of the correctness of the record of rights under Sec. 135-J of the Bombay Land Revenue Code 1879. Third, the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal was justified in setting aside the findings of fact of the Mamlatdar and the Deputy collector because of error of law.

11. The admission on which reliance has been placed by counsel for the appellant suffers from three infirmities. In the