Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
ROR and Presumption of Title/Ownership - Revenue records and entries in Record of Rights (ROR) are presumed to be correct and serve as evidence of possession, but they do not automatically confer or prove ownership or title. The presumption of correctness can be rebutted if the entries are made fraudulently or surreptitiously, or if there is no foundation laid for secondary evidence ["Matam Ashok Kumar vs State of A.P. Rep. by its District Collector, Kurnool - Andhra Pradesh"], ["Nokhai VS D. D. C. - Allahabad"], ["Bhagwatrao S/o. Narayanrao Randive VS Panditrao S/o. Narayanrao Randive - Bombay"], ["Kranti Kumar v. Kiran Shrivastava and Others - Chhattisgarh"], ["Hari Kumhar, son of Late Ganesh Kumhar vs Laldeo Kumhar - Jharkhand"], ["Surendra Prakash, son of late Shri Vishnu Dutt Joshi VS Legal Representatives of Meghraj son of Gordhandas Joshi - Rajasthan"], ["CHINTAMANI PATI VS KRISHNA CHAUDRA PANDA - Orissa"].
Presumption as a Rebuttable Presumption - Entries in revenue records are rebuttable presumptions of possession or correctness, but they do not create conclusive title. The burden is on the party asserting ownership to prove title independently, especially when the record lacks a foundation or is challenged on grounds of fraud or mistake ["Matam Ashok Kumar vs State of A.P. Rep. by its District Collector, Kurnool - Andhra Pradesh"], ["Nokhai VS D. D. C. - Allahabad"], ["Bhagwatrao S/o. Narayanrao Randive VS Panditrao S/o. Narayanrao Randive - Bombay"], ["Kranti Kumar v. Kiran Shrivastava and Others - Chhattisgarh"], ["Hari Kumhar, son of Late Ganesh Kumhar vs Laldeo Kumhar - Jharkhand"], ["Surendra Prakash, son of late Shri Vishnu Dutt Joshi VS Legal Representatives of Meghraj son of Gordhandas Joshi - Rajasthan"].
Evidence and Foundation for Secondary Evidence - When original documents are not available, secondary evidence such as certified copies can be admitted only if a proper foundation is laid. Without establishing proper custody or the circumstances under which copies are made, the presumption of genuineness does not apply. The Supreme Court emphasized that the party has to lay down the factual foundation to establish the right to give secondary evidence ["KRANTI KUMAR VS KIRAN SHRIVASTAVA - Chhattisgarh"], ["Kranti Kumar v. Kiran Shrivastava and Others - Chhattisgarh"].
Presumption and Fraud or Forgery - Revenue records or entries can be rebutted if shown to be fraudulent or made surreptitiously, which nullifies their legal effect and any presumptive value. Fraudulent entries do not support claims of ownership ["Nokhai VS D. D. C. - Allahabad"], ["Matam Ashok Kumar vs State of A.P. Rep. by its District Collector, Kurnool - Andhra Pradesh"].
Presumption and Long Possession - Long-standing possession or continuous use, supported by revenue records, can lead to a presumption of rights, but such presumption is rebuttable. Absence of evidence to challenge the record or prove a better title leaves the presumption intact, yet it remains subject to rebuttal if fraud or other invalidating factors are established ["CHINTAMANI PATI VS KRISHNA CHAUDRA PANDA - Orissa"], ["Surendra Prakash, son of late Shri Vishnu Dutt Joshi VS Legal Representatives of Meghraj son of Gordhandas Joshi - Rajasthan"], ["Hari Kumhar, son of Late Ganesh Kumhar vs Laldeo Kumhar - Jharkhand"].
Presumption of Innocence and Legal Presumptions - There is a general presumption of innocence in law, and proof of guilt must be based on positive evidence, not mere silence or absence of explanation. Similarly, legal presumptions such as those related to signatures, execution, or notices are subject to rebuttal with cogent evidence ["KING v. JAMES CHANDRASEKERA"], ["Raja Ram VS Ram Asrey - Allahabad"].
Presumption in Specific Statutory Contexts - Certain presumptions, such as those under Section 90 of the Evidence Act regarding documents over 30 years old, require a proper foundation. Without such foundation, copies or secondary evidence are not presumed to be genuine ["Surendra Prakash, son of late Shri Vishnu Dutt Joshi VS Legal Representatives of Meghraj son of Gordhandas Joshi - Rajasthan"], ["Priti Poddar and Others v. Pannalal Kashuka - Calcutta"].
Analysis and Conclusion:
The main insight across these sources is that in the absence of a foundation of record of right or a document establishing ownership, presumptions based on revenue records or entries are only rebuttable and do not constitute conclusive proof of title or rights. Courts rely on the principle that revenue records are presumptive evidence of possession, but they do not create or prove ownership unless challenged with cogent evidence demonstrating fraud, mistake, or lack of foundation. Proper procedural steps, including establishing custody and circumstances for secondary evidence, are essential for these presumptions to hold. Ultimately, without a foundation or direct proof, presumption alone cannot substitute for proof of title or ownership.
References:- ["Matam Ashok Kumar vs State of A.P. Rep. by its District Collector, Kurnool - Andhra Pradesh"]- ["Nokhai VS D. D. C. - Allahabad"]- ["Bhagwatrao S/o. Narayanrao Randive VS Panditrao S/o. Narayanrao Randive - Bombay"]- ["Kranti Kumar v. Kiran Shrivastava and Others - Chhattisgarh"]- ["Hari Kumhar, son of Late Ganesh Kumhar vs Laldeo Kumhar - Jharkhand"]- ["Surendra Prakash, son of late Shri Vishnu Dutt Joshi VS Legal Representatives of Meghraj son of Gordhandas Joshi - Rajasthan"]- ["CHINTAMANI PATI VS KRISHNA CHAUDRA PANDA - Orissa"]- ["Priti Poddar and Others v. Pannalal Kashuka - Calcutta"]- ["KING v. JAMES CHANDRASEKERA"]- ["Raja Ram VS Ram Asrey - Allahabad"]
In property disputes, claimants often rely on long-term possession to assert ownership. But can courts simply presume title based on years of unchallenged use? The legal question at the heart of many cases is: R.O.R. in absence of foundation of record of right, there cannot be any presumption. This principle underscores a fundamental rule in property law—presumptions of rights or title require a solid evidentiary foundation, typically a Record of Rights (ROR) or equivalent documents. Without it, long possession alone won't suffice. This blog delves into this doctrine, supported by case law and practical guidance.
A Record of Rights, often abbreviated as ROR, is an official government document that records land ownership, possession, and rights. In jurisdictions like India, under land revenue codes such as the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (Sections 148 and 157), entries in ROR or mutation registers create a presumption of correctness that must be rebutted by opposing evidence. As noted in one case, Entries in revenue records create a presumption of ownership that must be rebutted by the opposing party; mere claims of adverse possession without supporting ownership evidence are insufficient. Shantabai Gopinath Thakur vs Pandurang Janardhan Mhatre - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 4201
However, this presumption is not absolute. Revenue records hold only presumptive value and do not confer title outright. Chowdamma (D) by LRs. VS Venkatappa (D) by LRs. - 2025 8 Supreme 268 They serve as prima facie evidence but can be challenged with stronger proof.
In the absence of a foundation of record of right, there can be no presumption of title or ownership based on long possession or user; courts cannot presume rights without sufficient evidence establishing such rights.M. Siddiq (D) Thr. Lrs. VS Mahant Suresh Das - 2019 8 Supreme 1
This core principle means courts won't infer ownership merely from someone occupying land for decades. A valid ROR, supporting documents, or direct evidence is required. Without these, claims falter.
The doctrine of lost grant is often invoked in such disputes. It presumes a grant existed when long, uninterrupted, peaceful possession is proven—but only if no contrary evidence exists and original records are unavailable. The doctrine of lost grant is a rule of evidence that presumes a grant existed when long, uninterrupted, and peaceful possession is proven, but only if no contrary evidence exists and the original record or evidence is unavailable. M. Siddiq (D) Thr. Lrs. VS Mahant Suresh Das - 2019 8 Supreme 1
This isn't a shortcut to title; it's evidentiary aid. For instance, in Raja Braja Sundar Deb vs. Moni Behara, the doctrine had no application where sufficient evidence of the grant's nature existed or records were available. M. Siddiq (D) Thr. Lrs. VS Mahant Suresh Das - 2019 8 Supreme 1 Similarly, Monohar Das Mohanta vs. Charu Chandra Pal stated: In the absence of any pleadings and of evidence on the basis of which a presumption could be raised of the application of the doctrine, it must necessarily follow that the doctrine of lost grant has no application.M. Siddiq (D) Thr. Lrs. VS Mahant Suresh Das - 2019 8 Supreme 1
Other cases reinforce this. Entries in ROR can be rebutted if self-contradictory or overridden by settlement maps showing true area and title. Md. Rafik Molla VS Sajedar Rahaman Molla - 2017 Supreme(Cal) 900 Finally published records like C.S.R.O.R. and L.R.R.O.R. are presumed correct absent contrary proof, but they indicate possession, not always exclusive title. Seikh Sahidul VS Sajahan Sheikh - 2016 Supreme(Cal) 1050
Presumptions aren't ironclad:- If ROR shows ownership in another, courts reject possession-based claims. Shantabai Gopinath Thakur vs Pandurang Janardhan Mhatre - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 4201- Direct evidence trumps presumption: Doctrine inapplicable with convincing proof of ownership. M. Siddiq (D) Thr. Lrs. VS Mahant Suresh Das - 2019 8 Supreme 1- Rebuttable nature: Revenue records' presumptive value yields to unimpeachable evidence, like in marriage and property disputes where cohabitation presumption outweighed records. Chowdamma (D) by LRs. VS Venkatappa (D) by LRs. - 2025 8 Supreme 268- No presumption without foundation: Taxability or guilt can't be presumed sans foundational facts, mirroring property rules. Commissioner of CGST, St and Central Excise VS Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. - 2019 Supreme(Bom) 624Neeraj Dutta VS State (Govt. of N. C. T. of Delhi) - 2023 1 Supreme 691
In negotiable instruments cases, similar logic applies: Presumptions under Section 139 shift burden, but accused can rebut with evidence, emphasizing proof over assumption. Usha Hiralal Kanojia VS Jayshree Mangesh Chauhan - 2023 Supreme(Bom) 479
Consider a Maharashtra land case where trial court granted ownership based on revenue records and possession. The appellate court upheld the presumption of correctness under Section 157 of MLRC, dismissing adverse possession claims lacking support. The sole issue arising for consideration is: (i) Whether the presumption of correctness of entries in record of right and register of mutations under Section 157 of MLRC only raises presumption and cannot be said to create any title... Shantabai Gopinath Thakur vs Pandurang Janardhan Mhatre - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 4201
In partition suits, plaintiffs discharged marriage proof burden via cohabitation presumption, shifting onus to defendants—who failed despite revenue records, as revenue records carry only presumptive value and do not confer title. Chowdamma (D) by LRs. VS Venkatappa (D) by LRs. - 2025 8 Supreme 268
Property disputes highlight ROR vulnerabilities: One court held ROR entries non-binding if title evidence prevails, rejecting oral exchanges. The entry in the Record of Right is not binding if the title to the property is with the party assailing the entry... Md. Rafik Molla VS Sajedar Rahaman Molla - 2017 Supreme(Cal) 900
These illustrate: Always build a foundation beyond possession.
To strengthen claims:- Produce valid ROR or documents: Secure certified copies early. M. Siddiq (D) Thr. Lrs. VS Mahant Suresh Das - 2019 8 Supreme 1- Avoid sole reliance on possession: Pair with deeds, mutations, or witness testimony.- Rebut opposing records: Use consistent, non-contradictory evidence. Shantabai Gopinath Thakur vs Pandurang Janardhan Mhatre - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 4201- Scrutinize pleadings: Doctrine requires specific averments. M. Siddiq (D) Thr. Lrs. VS Mahant Suresh Das - 2019 8 Supreme 1
Courts urge caution: Parties claiming rights based on long possession should ensure they have or produce a valid record of rights or documentary evidence supporting their claim. M. Siddiq (D) Thr. Lrs. VS Mahant Suresh Das - 2019 8 Supreme 1
The rule is clear: In absence of foundation of record of right there cannot be any presumption. Long possession may suggest rights, but without ROR or equivalent evidence, courts won't presume title. This protects against unsubstantiated claims while upholding evidentiary rigor.
Key Takeaways:- Build a strong foundation with records before claiming presumptions.- Understand doctrine of lost grant as evidentiary, not substantive.- Revenue entries presume but don't create title—rebut with proof.- Consult professionals for case-specific strategy.
This post provides general information based on cited judgments and is not legal advice. Property laws vary; seek qualified counsel for your situation.
References:1. M. Siddiq (D) Thr. Lrs. VS Mahant Suresh Das - 2019 8 Supreme 1 – Core on lost grant and ROR foundation.2. Shantabai Gopinath Thakur vs Pandurang Janardhan Mhatre - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 4201 – Presumption in revenue records.3. Chowdamma (D) by LRs. VS Venkatappa (D) by LRs. - 2025 8 Supreme 268 – Presumptive value of records.4. Md. Rafik Molla VS Sajedar Rahaman Molla - 2017 Supreme(Cal) 900 – Rebutting ROR entries.5. Seikh Sahidul VS Sajahan Sheikh - 2016 Supreme(Cal) 1050 – Published records' presumptions.6. M. Narsinga Rao VS State Of A. P. - 2000 8 Supreme 498 – Emphasizes foundation need. M. Narsinga Rao VS State Of A. P. - 2000 8 Supreme 498
#RecordOfRights, #PropertyLaw, #LostGrantDoctrine
In the absence of there being any document showing the title and the possession not to be unlawful, the presumption under Section 110 of the EVIDENCE ACT cannot be invoked. ... They cannot confer any right or title on the party relying on them for proving their title. 45. ... Even a revenue record is not a document of title. It merely raises a presumption in regard to possession. ... v) The property being recorded in the name of the 2nd defendant (Endowment Commis....
Presumption of correctness of revenue record could not be rebutted. 35. ... It would be relevant to mention here that Consolidation Officer has rejected the right of respondents on Khata No. 254 since no documentary evidence was brought on record. ... The distinction is that one cannot challenge the correctness of what the entry is the revenue record states but the entry is open to the attack that it was Made fraudulently or surreptitiously. Fraud and forgery rob a document of all its....
The law is well settled that the revenue record does not confer the title; it is only for the fiscal purpose. The plaintiff was to prove the title independently. He also argued that in the absence of notice of the measurement of the land, the evidence of the Cadastral surveyor cannot be believed. ... Hence, the plaintiff cannot lose his title over the suit field. Withholding the document creating a right would not affect the validity of the mutation entry No.334, when it was taken as per the application....
The sole issue arising for consideration is: (i) Whether the presumption of correctness of entries in record of right and register of mutations under Section 157 of MLRC ”] only raises presumption and cannot be said to create any title and the finding of Trial Court is based entirely on the revenue entries. ... The Defendant’s case that there is mistake in the Government records in respect of area of Survey No. 32, Hissa Nos. 34 and 35 cannot be accepted in the absence#HL_....
A Court of law cannot offer refuge to studied silence where a duty to disclose exists. ... The defendants contended that the defendant No. 1 is the only wife of the deceased Dasabovi, and hence, the plaintiffs have no right, title, or interest over the suit schedule properties. ... The right to begin follows onus probandi. It assumes importance in the early stage of a case. The question of onus of proof has greater force, where the question is, which party is to begin. ... In the absence of the same, the said assertion c....
However, in the absence of complainant’s evidence to prove obtainment or an attempt to obtain, the presumption under Section 20 cannot arise. ... But, acceptance or obtainment or an agreement to accept or an attempt to obtain cannot be established by means of a presumption in the absence of foundational facts. ... Of course, a presumption of fact is subject to rebuttal by the accused and in the absence of rebuttal presumption stands....
The party further has to lay down the factual foundation to establish the right to give secondary evidence where the original document cannot be produced. ... State of Madhya Pradesh, (2013) 10 SCC 758 , the Supreme Court has held that the party has to lay down the factual foundation to establish the right to give secondary evidence where the original document cannot be produced and held as under: - "13 ... Certified copy of the sale deed Ex.P-1C, in absence of #HL_....
The party further has to lay down the factual foundation to establish the right to give secondary evidence where the original document cannot be produced. ... State of Madhya Pradesh (2013) 10 SCC 758, the Supreme Court has held that the party has to lay down the factual foundation to establish the right to give secondary evidence where the original document cannot be produced and held as under: ... "13. ... proper custody, presumption would not be available. ... Cert....
It is matter of record that the accused has filed the complaint with RCF police station. Its extract is on record. It is true that the said extract contains information recorded on the basis of the complaint given by the accused. ... One is absence of evidence to show advancing of money and the second, absence of evidence as to how the money is raised. 27. ... So the issue is whether the learned Additional Sessions Judge was right in reversing the findings given by the trial Court. The law on the point ....
When the initial framing of the question itself being erroneous, one cannot expect the outcome to be right. The onus, instead of being fixed on the accused, has been fixed on the complainant. ... To that extent, the courts in our view were right in holding on those lines. ... This finding cannot be sustained. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Uttam Ram v. ... The story put forward by the accused that the cheques were given by way of security is not believable in the absence of further evi....
In the absence of any such foundation there cannot be any taxability. It would be material to reproduce the order passed by the CESTAT which reads thus : "There is no foundation in the show cause notice bringing out whether any service element was involved while renting the wagons by the appellant to railways.
It is pertinent to mention that the appellants would have the right, title, interest in the portion, if they have purchased from their predecessor-in-interest who had received the portion as was allotted in the registered deed of partition of the year 1954 (supra). It was further held that entry of R.S. Record of Right was self-contradictory and therefore, the correctness of its presumption was rebutted having no probative value. Learned Courts below further held that correctness of settlement map with regard to the area would prevail over the entry of R.S. Record of Right.
Regarding this, the defendants claimed in paragraph-11 of the W/S that Santosh was the son of Tara Sankar Chatterjee who had only intermediate interest over the said Khatiyan and thus, he had only rent receiving interest in the suit property and actual possession was with the Raiyats and the deed will show that only the rent receiving interest was transferred to Uchhap as per that deed of 1941. They also claimed that Tara Sankar Chatterjee had other co-sharers in respect of the said Khatiyan No. 390 and as such, he had no exclusive saleable right over the property. The defendants also claime....
The Resolution of the Standing Committee was approved by the Full Court. Therefore, it cannot at all be presumed that the Standing Committee passed the Resolution on the basis of general evaluation of the performance of the petitioner. There cannot be any presumption contrary to what is specifically contained in the record.
Further, there is nothing in the LCR to suggest that the seized coal was kept in open and had decayed due to rain, wind etc. There cannot be any presumption, in absence of any material on record that the seized coal had decayed. In view of these facts, I am of the considered view that there could not be any reasonable explanation to refuse the release the coal in favour of the petitioner. I find that the application of the petitioner for release of the coal has been rejected by the Court below on hyper technical grounds, which cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
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
