Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Bharati H.Dangre, J.
Harischandra Panglo - Appellant
Versus
Shambu Dacu - Respondent
Second Appeal No. 87 of 2005
Decided On : 12-03-2021
Land Dispute - Goa Land Revenue Code, 1968 - Section 105, Section 94, Section 95, Section 107, Section 110 - The court discussed the presumption of correctness of entries in the Record of Rights and Register of Mutation under the Goa Land Revenue Code, 1968. It highlighted the importance of maintaining land records and the presumption of truth attached to revenue records. The court emphasized that the presumption of correctness of an entry in the revenue record is rebuttable and can only be rebutted by evidence of impeccable integrity and reliability. It also discussed the relevance of entries in public records under the Indian Evidence Act, 1972, and the burden of proof as to ownership. The judgment confirmed the presumption of truth in disputed entries until rebutted or lawfully substituted, and upheld the decision granting permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiffs.
Fact of the Case:
The Plaintiffs claimed ownership and possession of an agricultural property known as 'COLEAN SARVO' situated at Bethora, Ponda-Goa. They sought permanent injunction against the Defendants who claimed ownership of the same property. The Trial Court declined relief to the Plaintiffs, but the Appellate Court decreed permanent injunction in their favor.
Finding of the Court:
The Trial Court erred in not giving due weightage to the entries in the Record of Rights and in failing to recognize the presumption of truth attached to revenue records. The Appellate Court correctly applied the presumption under Section 105 of the Goa Land Revenue Code and granted permanent injunction to the Plaintiffs. The Defendants failed to rebut the presumption of possession in favor of the Plaintiffs, and the burden of proof as to ownership was on the Defendants, which they failed to discharge.
Issues: The main issues were the ownership and possession of the disputed property, the relevance of entries in the Record of Rights, and the burden of proof as to ownership.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the presumption of correctness of entries in the revenue record is rebuttable and can only be rebutted by evidence of impeccable integrity and reliability. It confirmed the presumption of truth in disputed entries until rebutted or lawfully substituted, and emphasized the burden of proof as to ownership.
Final Decision: The Appeal was dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree of the Appellate Court granting permanent injunction in favor of the Plaintiffs.
JUDGMENT
BHARATI H.DANGRE,J. - Heard Mr. M.B. D'Costa, learned Senior Counsel with Advocate Ms. Karishma Betquekar, for the Appellants and Mr. S.D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel with advocate Ms. S. Keny and Mr. T. Sequeira, for the Respondents.
2. The suit property is an agricultural property known as "COLEAN SARVO" or "COLEACHO SODO" and also known as "GAR ROVLU" situated at Bethora, Ponda-Goa and described in Land Registration Officer of Ilhas under no. 13657 of Book B 36 (new) and originally surveyed under old cadastral survey no. 41 and presently surveyed under no. 249/1, 249/2, 250/0, 251/0, 252/1, 253/0, 256/0, 265/2 and 265/3 of village Bethora and bounded as under:
East: By top of hill and boundary of Village Codar.
West: By rivulet.
North: By stone fence of Sheutu Probina.
South: By old Dabal road.
3. The Plaintiffs (Defendants herein) instituted a suit for permanent injunction claiming to be the owners and in possession of the suit property recorded under Land Registration Office under No. 13657 and originally surveyed under Old Cadastral Survey No. 41. They trace their title to the suit property to the Deed of Sale dated 22.09.1975, registered in the Sub-Registrar's Office at Ponda under No. 284 at pages 40 to 43 of Book No. 1, vol. 33 dated 24.10.1975. The Plaintiffs claim that since then they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property as owners thereof. It is also the claim of the Plaintiffs that prior to its purchase, the property was enjoyed by the father of the Plaintiff No. 1 and 2 as a leased out property. The Plaintiff rely upon the Form No. III wherein in the occupant's column of new survey number, the suit property is recorded as belonging to the deceased brother of the Plaintiff, Vassant Dhaku Salelkar as occupant alongwith the name of the Plaintiffs. On an application being moved for correction of survey record pertaining to the suit property before the Mamlatdar, a case was registered and after conducting necessary enquiry, the application was allowed, directing inclusion of the name of the Plaintiffs and the deceased brother as occupant in respect of the suit property. An appeal against the said order has been preferred by the Defendants, and the same was also dismissed by the Deputy Collector on 25.01.1993, is the version of the Plaint.
4. On an attempt by the Defendant no. 3, on 26.12.1993 to forcibly and illegally trespass on a portion of the suit property and in cutting of saplings and bushes under the pretext of cleaning the portion, the Plaintiffs approached the Court seeking a permanent injunction restraining the Defendants and the family members or any person claiming through or under them in any manner interfering with the suit property or in part thereof.
5. The Defendant set up a claim that property "COLEAN SARVO" is in fact the property "Bhirondem" and known by both the names but it is registered under No. 5665 of Book of B-15 new and inscribed in the name of Puno Deu Gaonkar and Sonu Deu Gaonkar, grandfather and granduncle of defendant No. 1. It is claimed that the suit property is in their possession and enjoyment alongwith their cousin Venkatesh Gaonkar and the vendor of the plaintiffs Kagi Mohamad Isac and his wife had no right, title or interest in the suit property and that the Sale Deed in his favour is a nullity.
6. The Civil Judge Junior Division at Ponda, vide his judgment dated 24.07.2002 declined the relief claimed in the Regular Civil Suit No. 6/94/C, recording that the Plaintiffs have failed to prove that they are owners in possession of the suit property, since they have failed to establish any connection between their vendor Kagi Isac and Xec Saloskar in whose name the property was inscribed and that the boundaries of the property bearing Land Registration no. 13657 do not correspond to the boundaries of the property bearing Old Cadastral Survey No. 41. It was also held that entry in Form No. III and Form No. I and XIV raises a presumption of possession in favou
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
