Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Rajesh Jain VS Ajay Singh...
Checking relevance for Karewwa VS Hussensab Khansaheb Wajantri...
2001 6 Supreme 18202 : The presumption of correctness of an entry in the revenue record is rebuttable, but a mere statement of fact in a written statement is not sufficient to rebut this presumption. The Appellate Tribunal found that the respondent was recorded as a tenant since 1973, and no interference was called for, indicating that the presumption stood unless effectively rebutted by evidence beyond a mere assertion in a written statement.Checking relevance for State of A. P. VS Star Bone Mill & Fertiliser Co. ...
2013 0 Supreme(SC) 182 : A revenue record is not a document of title. It merely raises a presumption in regard to possession. Presumption of possession and/or continuity thereof, both forward and backward, can also be raised under Section 110 of the Evidence Act. The presumption arising from a revenue record is rebuttable, as established in the case of Chief Conservator of Forests, Govt. of A.P. v. Collector & Ors., AIR 2003 SC 1805, where it was held that ''''Presumption, which is rebuttable, is attracted when the possession is prima facie lawful and when the contesting party has no title.''''Checking relevance for N. Vijay Kumar VS Vishwanath Rao N. ...
Checking relevance for BASALINGAPPA VS MUDIBASAPPA...
Checking relevance for Kishan Rao VS Shankargouda...
Checking relevance for M. S. Narayana Menon @ Mani VS State Of Kerala...
Checking relevance for Rabari Nagjibhai Maneklal VS Nilamben Upendrabhai Shah...
2022 0 Supreme(Guj) 319 : The presumption arising from revenue records is rebuttable. This is explicitly stated in multiple passages from the document, including: ''''This presumption is rebuttable.'''' (para 45), ''''A revenue record is not a document of title. It merely raises a presumption in regard to the possession. Presumption of possession and/or continuity thereof both forward and backward can also be raised under Section 110 of the Indian Evidence Act.'''' (para 47), and ''''The entries in revenue record may refer to the possession of the person on the land in dispute and prima facie it may raise a presumption of title but such presumption is rebuttable.'''' (para 48). These statements are supported by Supreme Court precedents cited in the document, such as Narain Prasad Agarwal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2007 (8) SCALE 250, which holds that ''''such a presumption is rebuttable.''''Checking relevance for Monir Uddin Ahmed, Son Of Late Abbas Ali @ Abbas Ali Talukdar VS Union Of India...
2022 0 Supreme(Gau) 549 : The presumption of correctness attached to entries in revenue records, including Jamabandies, is rebuttable. This principle is supported by multiple Supreme Court decisions cited in the document, including Karewwa and others vs. Hussensab Khansaheb Wajantri and others (2002) 10 SCC 315, where it was held that while the presumption of correctness of an entry in the revenue record is rebuttable, it cannot be rebutted merely by a statement in the written statement; instead, evidence must be led to displace the presumption. Similarly, in Harish Chander and others vs. Ghisa Ram and another (1981) 1 SCC 431, the Court emphasized that the presumption of truth attached to entries in the Jamabandi is rebuttable but requires affirmative evidence to overcome. The document further clarifies that the presumption applies only to genuine entries and not to forged or fraudulent ones, reinforcing that the presumption is not absolute and can be challenged with proper evidence.Checking relevance for Minati Bhadra VS Dilip Kr. Bhadra...
2023 0 Supreme(Cal) 1573 : The Hon’ble Supreme Court in KAREWWA VS. HUSENSAB KHANSAHEB WAJANTRI (2002) 10 SCC 315 held that the presumption of correctness of an entry in the revenue record is a rebuttable presumption. However, mere statement of fact in the written statement is not sufficient to rebut the presumption; evidence must be led to show that the entry is incorrect.
