Back
1931 Supreme(SC) 42
Privy Council At Patna
Sir Dinshah Mulla, Sir George Lowndes, Sir Lancelot Sanderson, Atkin, Justice Lords Blanesburgh , JJ.
(Mahanth) Krishna Dayal Gir -Appellant
Versus
Rani Bhubneshwari Kuar and others -Resopndent
Privy Council Appeal No. 1 of 1929: Patna Appeal No. 35 of 1927
Decided On : 17-04-1931
G.D. McNair, E.B. Raikes , S. Hyam, A.M. Dunne
Entries in the Record of Rights carry a statutory presumption of correctness. This presumption, especially when supported by admissible statutory returns, can only be rebutted by strong, authentic evidence, and cannot be displaced by documents of doubtful authenticity.
Headnote:(A) Bengal Tenancy Act, 1885 - Section 103 - Bengal Cess Act, 1880 - Section 95 - Presumption of correctness of Record of Rights - Entry in the Record of Rights shall be presumed to be correct until it is proved by evidence to be incorrect - Where such entry is based upon a road cess return, which is admissible in evidence against the holder, a very strong case is required to rebut the statutory presumption.
(B) Evidence - Authenticity of documents - Where a party relies upon a rent receipt and an uncertified copy of a decree to challenge a statutory record, and such documents are found to be of doubtful authenticity, they are insufficient to displace the presumption of correctness attached to the Record of Rights.
Facts of the case:
A dispute arose between a lessor and a lessee regarding the exact area of lands demised under a permanent lease. The lessee claimed the area was 300 bighas, while the lessor contended it was 200 to 231 bighas. The original lease documents were unavailable. Evidence showed that in several previous lawsuits and in a statutory road cess return, the lessee or their predecessors had stated the area to be 200 or 225 bighas. The Record of Rights subsequently recorded the area as 231 bighas based on the road cess return. The lessee sought to claim a larger area based on a rent receipt and an uncertified copy of a decree.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the entry in the Record of Rights was based on a road cess return which is admissible in evidence against the appellant. The documents produced by the appellant to claim a larger area, specifically the rent receipt and the uncertified copy of the decree, were of doubtful authenticity and failed to provide a strong enough case to rebut the statutory presumption of correctness.
Issues: Whether the statutory presumption of correctness of the entry in the Record of Rights regarding the area of the leased land could be rebutted by documents of doubtful authenticity.
Ratio Decidendi: Under Section 103 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, entries in the Record of Rights are presumed correct. When such an entry is supported by a return filed under the Bengal Cess Act, which is admissible in evidence, the presumption is strengthened. To rebut this, the party must produce strong and authentic evidence; documents of doubtful authenticity are insufficient to overturn the statutory presumption.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
property law
-
land tenure
- mukarrari patta
- record of rights
-
land tenure
-
practice and procedure
-
evidence
- presumptions
- admissibility of public documents
- oral vs documentary evidence
-
evidence
Sir Dinshah Mulla—
This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court at Patna, dated 28th June 1927, which reversed a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Gaya dated 11th June 1923. The dispute between the parties is as to the exact area of the lands demised under a mukarrari patta made in 1835 by the 7 annas Tikari Raj, now represented by the plaintiff-respondent, to Sib Dayal Gir, the then mohant of a math at Mahodah, and the predecessor-in-title of the defendant-appellant. The lands are situated in Mauza Bodh Gaya, also known as Mahabodh. The appellant contends that the area was 300 bighas, while the plaintiff-respondent admits only 200 bighas, or at the most 231. Neither the patta nor the kabuliyat is forthcoming, and it is this that has caused the difficulty of the case.
The math at Mahodah was subordinate to another math situated at Bodh Gaya. It has been alleged by the appellant that the late mohant of the math at Mahodah was Rangpal Gir, that he died without a chela to succeed him, and that on his death the math at Mahodah with all properties appertaining to it, including the mukarrari lands, passed to him as the mohant of the math at Bodh Gaya.
A large body of evidence, both oral and documentary, was adduced before the Subordinate Judge of Gaya, in whose Court the present suit was instituted. The decision of this appeal, in their Lordships' opinion, turns mainly upon a consideration of the documents exhibited in the case, being records of proceedings in suits brought by and against the appellant and his predecessors-in-title in respect of the lands in dispute and certain public documents, to be presently referred to. It is therefore necessary to see what those proceedings and documents are.
It appears that one Gulab Gir, under claim of mohantship to the math at Mahodah, mortgaged the mukarrari lands in Bodh Gaya to Bishunath Singh. Bishunath Singh obtained a decree on his mortgage, purchased the lands at the execution sale, and obtained possession thereof on 18th April 1888, it further appears that in November 1892, Bishunath Singh sold a 4 annas share of the lands to Altaf Khan. In October 1893, Rangpal Gir instituted a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Gaya, being Suit No. 238 of 1893, against Altaf Khan and the sons of Bishunath Singh (who was then dead) for possession of the lands under S. 9, Specific Relief Act, 1877. In the plaint in the suit the area of the mukarrari lands at Bodh Gaya was stated to be 200 bighas. Rangpal Gir died pending the suit, and the appellant was brought on the record as his successor. On 26th October 1895, a consent decree was made between the appellant and the sons of Bishunath, under which the latter delivered possession of the 12 annas share in their possession to the appellant, while the suit as to the remaining 4 annas in the possession of Altaf Khan was dismissed. Subsequently on 25th February 1897, the appellant brought another suit in the same Court against Altaf Khan, being Suit No. 70 of 1897, to establish his title to the 4 annas share, and obtained a decree against him on 18th April 1898. In the plaint in that suit also the area of the mukarrari lands was stated to be 200 bighas.
In the meantime, on 29th March 1897, one Kali Charan and others alleging that they were joint with Bishunath Singh and his sons, and that the consent decree in Suit No. 238 of 1899 was obtained by collusion and behind their back, brought a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Gaya, being Suit No. 20 of 1897, against the appellant and the sons of Bishunath Singh for recovery of their share of the lands. In his written statement in that suit the appellant again stated that the area of the mukarrari lands was 200 bighas. The suit was dismissed on 13th April 1898.
While this litigation was proceeding the appellant obtained on 12th April 1896, a zarpeshgi lease from the Raj of the entire Mauza Bodh Gaya for a term of 20 years, the consideration for the lease being an advance of Rs. 70,000 ma
