STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. PREMJI DEVJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two groups of matters are decided by this common judgment. These matters arise out of Land Reference Cases No. 54 to 69 all of 1989 and 27 of 1991 to 35/95 decided by one and the same learned Judge of the Reference Court i.e. the Assistant Judge, Amreli on different dates. He decided chronologically the references from which First Appeals No. 1885 of 1995 and the group arise. Relying on that very judgment, he decided the subsequent matters. Virtually, therefore, his decision rests on the reasons given by him in Land Reference Case No. 69 of 1989 which he has treated as the main reference so far as the first group of appeals are concerned.

(2.) . For reasons to be stated hereunder, the matters are required to be remanded. The learned Judge, in his judgment, has adopted a method of sale instances for deciding the market value. This is one of the accepted mode of arriving at market value. However, so far as the merits of the instances relied on by him is concerned, unfortunately he has lost sight of the fact that the documents Exhs. 14 & 15 relied on by him were not on record in the manner required under the Indian evidence Act, particularly under Sec. 68. The documents in question were referred to in the deposition of one of the claimants Mr. Premji Devji Exh. 13, who referred the documents as mark 10/3 and 10/4. This is the position in para 2 of his examination in chief. The documents were not exhibited at the end of the examination in chief and in our opinion, rightly so, because neither the execution was proved; nor contents of the documents were proved. In the course of cross-examination, on behalf of the State the learned Government Pleader, at the fag end of para 9, has referred to these two documents and put questions in the cross- examination. We agree with the learned Addl. Advocate General Mr. Shelat that these questions were not required to be put at all to the witness because the documents were not accepted in evidence as they were not given regular exhibited nos. and therefore, were not forming part of the record. At the same time, merely when questions are put, the approach of the learned Judge exhibiting the said documents is not correct. Questions put to the witness do not in any way, indicate that genuineness of the documents and contents thereof are admitted by the State. On the contrary, the trend of the cross-examination clearly indicates that the evidence was sought to be challenged by putting questions as to the genuineness and authenticity and particularly the price said to have been paid with regard to these sale transactions.

(3.) . Far from admitting the documents, therefore, the learned Government Pleader was challenging the contents thereof and was making attempts, in his own way, to see that these documents do not help the claimants in getting the market value fixed as sought by them.