Back
1925 Supreme(SC) 12
PRIVY COUNCIL [ON APPEAL FROM THEEAST INDIES]
LORD SHAW, LORD CARSON, LORD BLANESBURGH, SIR JOHN EDGE, AND MR. AMEER ALI.
GHULAM RASUL KHAN - Appellant
Versus
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA IN COUNCIL - Respondents
On Appeal from the High Court at Lahore.
Decided On : Mar. 12. 1925.
Solicitor for appellant: E. Dalgado.
Solicitor for respondent: Solicitor, India Office.
Public records created by authorized officials in the course of official duty are admissible to prove facts of public interest, serving as an exception to the hearsay rule, particularly when the passage of time makes direct evidence of pedigree or tribal identity impossible.
Headnote:(A) Alienation of Lands Act - Section 3 - Permanent alienation of land - Member of agricultural tribe - Determination of caste/tribe based on revenue records - Entries in public records showing a specific sub-tribe are admissible to prove tribal identity - Profession does not constitute a tribal clan - Public documents recorded by authorized agents in the course of official duty are receivable to prove facts of public interest, especially where a lapse of time makes other evidence impossible.
(B) Evidence - Public records - Admissibility - Statements in public documents are receivable to prove facts stated on the grounds that they were made by authorized agents of the public in the course of official duty and regarding facts of public interest or required for the benefit of the community.
Facts of the case:
The appellant sought a declaration that he belonged to a specific agricultural tribe to facilitate the mutation of land purchased, as the alienation was otherwise contrary to the policy of the relevant land alienation act. Revenue records described the appellant's caste as a combination of a profession and a sub-tribe. The lower court found in favor of the appellant, but the appellate court reversed this, questioning the title to the use of the sub-tribe name despite long-standing entries in public records since 1852.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the term denoting a profession does not preclude membership in an agricultural tribe. Since the sub-tribe name is exclusively associated with a notified agricultural tribe, and public records consistently listed the family under that sub-tribe, the appellant is entitled to be recognized as a member of that agricultural tribe.
Issues: Whether the appellant belonged to a notified agricultural tribe based on the entries in the revenue records.
Ratio Decidendi: Public records maintained by authorized officials in the course of their duty are admissible to prove the facts recorded therein, particularly regarding matters of public interest or community benefit. Such records are an exception to the hearsay rule, especially when the passage of time renders direct evidence unavailable. If a sub-tribe name is unique to a specific agricultural tribe, the use of that name in official records is sufficient proof of tribal membership.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
land law
-
alienation of land
- agricultural tribes
-
alienation of land
-
practice and procedure
-
evidence
- public documents
- hearsay evidence
- pedigree evidence
-
evidence
Judgement
Appeal by special leave from a decree of the High Court (October 25, 1920) reversing a decree of the Subordinate Judge, first class, of Ludhiana.
The appellant brought a suit for a declaration that he was a Mohal Rajput, and that entries in the revenue papers showing his caste as Mohal Khayyat were incorrect. The trial judge made a decree as prayed, but that decree was reversed by the High Court (Chevis and Scott-Smith JJ.) upon appeal and the suit dismissed.
8 Law. Rep. 52 Ind. App. 201 ( 1924- 1925) Ghulam Rasul Khan V. Secretary of State for India in C ouncil
The facts and the grounds of the decision of the High Court appear from the judgment of the Judicial Committee.
1925. Feb. 9, 10. De Gruyther K.C. and Parikh for the appellant.
Dunne K.C. and Kenworthy Brown for the respondent.
1925. March 12. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by
LORD CARSON. The (plaintiff) appellant is a resident in the District of Ludhiana of the Punjab and is the owner of "culturable lands" in that district. In or about the year 1912 he bought certain other lands and applied for mutation of names. The Deputy Commissioner and, on appeal, the Financial Commissioner of the Punjab, on May 3, 1913, refused the application on the ground that the alienation in question was against the policy of the Punjab Alienation of Lands Act (No. XIII. of 1900).
That Act by s. 3 enacts as follows "3.—(1.) A person who desires to make a permanent alienation of his land shall be at liberty to make such alienation where—
(a) The alienor is not a member of an agricultural tribe; or
(c) The alienor is a member of an agricultural tribe and the alienee is a member of the same tribe or of a tribe in the same group.
“(2.) Except in the cases provided for in sub-section (1.), a permanent alienation of land shall not take effect as such unless and until sanction is given thereto by a Deputy Commissioner.
"(3.) The Deputy Commissioner shall enquire into the circumstances of the alienation and shall have discretion to grant or refuse the sanction required by sub-section (2.)."
The grounds of the decision both of the Deputy Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner were that the plaintiff was described in the revenue records as "Khayyat Mohal," that that tribe was not one of the notified agricultural tribes of the Ludhiana District, nor was the Mohal tribe to which it corresponded. The plaintiff alleged that although described in the revenue record of the land belonging to him as "Mohal Khayyat" he was nevertheless a Rajput and a member of an agricultural tribe. It was admitted that if he was a Rajput he was entitled to become the alienee of the property, as Rajputs were an agricultural tribe and were so declared in the Punjab Gazette of April 21, 1904.
The plaintiff then instituted this suit in the Court of the District Judge of Ludhiana against the respondent and prayed for a declaratory decree to the effect that he was a Mohal Rajput and that all the entries in the revenue papers showing his caste as "Mohal Khayyat" were incorrect. The parties went to trial on one issue only—namely, "Is the plaintiff a Rajput?"
On June 24, 1915, the Subordinate Judge, after hearing a number of witnesses and examining a number of documents on both sides, delivered judgment and passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff. The respondent appealed to the High Court of Judicature at Lahore and on October 25, 1920, that Court set aside the decree of the Subordinate Judge and dismissed the plaintiffs suit. Hence the present appeal in which, admittedly, the only question for determination is whether the plaintiff is a Rajput.
The case made by the plaintiff, as the appellate Court states, was that although in the revenue records
8 Law. Rep. 52 Ind. App. 201 ( 1924- 1925) Ghulam Rasul Khan V. Secretary of State for India in C ouncil 20
the plaintiffs family has been shown since 1852 as holding land and their caste been described as " Khayyat Mohal" the term " Khayyat " does not deno
