P GOVINDASWAMY Vs. T DEVARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The dispute in this C.R.P. relates to a piece of land which measures 1 acre 32 guntas and bears No. 177, it is a coconut plantation and the plaintiff had contended that pursuant to a family partition which took place on 15.10.1965, this property came to the share of his father and that thereafter, the property belongs to him and that the revenue extracts reflect this state of affairs. It is principally on the basis of this material that the Trial Court granted an interim order in favour of the plaintiff. The respondent who is a close relation took the matter in appeal and the appeal Court came to the conclusion that the material produced by the plaintiff such as the partition deed required to be scrutinised in evidence in so far as the defendant did not admit the correctness of this document and furthermore, the appeal Court relied on one crucial factor namely that in the year 1990 the revenue records reflected the name of the defendant. The plaintiff had appealed against this change and the Assistant Commissioner had confirmed the entry in question. The appeal Court on this basis came to the conclusion that the grant of interim relief to the plaintiff was unwarranted. It is against that order that the present C.R.P. has been filed. This Court stayed the appellate order and after hearing the respondent, confirmed that stay.

(2.) The main contention raised by the petitioners learned advocate is that even on the basis of a prima facie appraisal, he has produced a partition deed which clearly shows that this survey number came to the share of his father. He places heavy reliance on the fact that right from the year 1966 upto 1989 the entry is consistently in his client's name. As regards the change that has taken place, the learned advocate submits that this was on the basis of some oral evidence which the Tahsildar has relied on and he stated that even though the appellate order has gone against his client, that the matter is pending before the Civil Court. His main contention is that if he can demonstrate to the Court for a consistently long period of time virtually upto the date when the suit was filed, that the entries are in the name of his client, that this is the strongest material he is entitled to rely upon. His contention is that a change particularly if it has taken place after the filing of the suit, it is of no consequence because that has been disputed. On the other hand, respondents learned advocate advances a strong submission that the only correct way of appraising the matter is to ascertain as to who is the party in possession at the point of time when the dispute has arisen. He relies on the latest entry in favour of his client and the fact that this entry has been confirmed by the appellate authority. In addition to this, learned advocate contends that the entry in question has presumptive value and in this regard he relies on a decision of this Court reported in THIMMAMMA vs. SADA RANGIAH ILR1988 KAR 1919 wherein Shivshankar Bhat, J as he then was, has held that a presumption as to entry in records of rights and register of mutations shall be presumed to be true until the contrary is proved. In other words, the court has reiterated the position that an entry in the Record of Rights is something which a Court is obliged to place strong reliance on. Learned advocate submits that his client was unaware of the wrong entry in the record even though it was for over a decade and when this entry came to his notice that he went to the authority who has varied the correct position and corrected the entry in this regard. He therefore contends that the granting of interim relief again this client was unjustified.

(3.) There is no dispute with regard to the legal position as canvassed by the respondents learned advocate, Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act does envisage that entires have presumptive value. For that however, it is necessary for a Court to scrutinise the surrounding circumstances namely two important factors, firstly the length of time during which the entry has been on record, the circumstances under which the entry came to be made and more importantly, the question as to whether there is a subsisting dispute with regard to the correctness of that entry. A Court is not required to mechanically accept whatever the revenue authorities have put down there particularly having regard to the manner in which these entries are made and the manner in which they are changed. In this background, what one needs to take serious note of is the fact that the entires in this case happen to be in the name of the plaintiff for almost 15 years after the partition has taken place. It would be a little difficult to accept even prima facie that during this long period of time the respondent was unaware of this fact. The second aspect of the matter is that the change has suddenly taken place only after the filing of the suit and that the plaintiff has disputed the correctness of this change and that that issue is yet to be finally decided. There is one crucial factor namely the fact that if for almost 14 or 15 years the entires were in the name of the plaintiff, it would be safe to rely on the legal presumption that unless the plaintiff was in possession, the entires would not have reflected his mane. The question arises as to under what circumstances the possession of the plaintiff could have been divested. It is his own case that he was in possession whereas the respondent also contends that he was in possession. If the record indicates till 1989 that the plaintiff was in possession, it is highly unlikely that he would lose possession and that too after the suit was filed. These are all grey areas which have got to be conclusively resolved after careful examination of the evidence, both oral and documentary which exercise the Trial Court will undertake. To my mind, as the record stands there was ample justification for the Trial Court to have granted interim relief and the circumstances under which this was vacated, on a careful scrutiny do not hold good in law. This being the position, the interim order granted by the Trial Court will have to be revived.