Summary
The Supreme Court restored the first appellate decree in a landowners’ suit where the defendant claimed tenancy contrary to revenue records. Ownership was admitted, and the defendant bore the burden of establishing the asserted tenancy. The statutory presumption favouring genuine, properly prepared records was not displaced by the oral testimony relied upon. Statements in summary revenue-correction proceedings were not automatically substantive evidence in the civil suit.
Issues
- Whether the defendant established tenancy contrary to the revenue records.
- Whether oral testimony and statements from revenue-correction proceedings displaced the statutory presumption.
Provisions considered
- Sections 32, 34 and 45, Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1954Identified the prescribed records and applied their rebuttable statutory presumption of truth. (¶¶ 10, 15, 16, 17, 18, 23, 24, 25)
Held
- Admitted ownership and the framed issue placed the burden of proving the asserted tenancy on the defendant. Failure to prove the plaintiffs’ separate allegation that he was their manager did not establish his tenancy. (¶¶ 10, 18, 25)
- Statements recorded in summary revenue-correction proceedings were not per se admissible as evidence in the civil suit. A qualifying previous statement might be used to confront its maker, but reference to the correction proceedings did not establish that the existing entries were wrong. (¶¶ 13, 14)
- The revenue records carried a statutory presumption, subject to challenges such as fraud, surreptitious alteration or departure from the prescribed procedure. The oral evidence relied upon here did not rebut that presumption with reliable, trustworthy and cogent documentary evidence of tenancy. (¶¶ 15, 17, 18, 19, 23, 24, 25)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside and first appellate court’s judgment and decree affirmed.