SADASHIV VITHAL GARDE Vs. SHANTIBEN @ DEVIBEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this appeal, the appellants, challenge the judgment dated 25th April, 1977 passed by the Bombay City Civil Court in Suit No.746 of 1964. That civil suit was filed by the appellants, claiming a declaration that they are owners of a plot of land, consists of Hissa No.11 from Survey No.164 in Mulund village of old Thane district, now in Greater Bombay and are renumbered as Hissa No.11 from Survey No.164-A situated at Lokmanya Tilak Road, Mulund, Thane, which is admeasuring about 847 sq. yards and that the defendants have no right, title or interest in the said land. They also claimed an order for a vacant possession of the land against the defendants.

(2.) IT was the case of the plaintiffs that they have purchased this land by a registered sale deed dated 24th January 1947 from one Dattatraya Anant Ghodke. It was further their case that their names have been recorded in the revenue record as owners of the plot and that the defendants have unauthorizedly constructed a chawl on the said land and have thus encroached upon the land.

(3.) SHRI Pradhan, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant urged before me that the suit was filed by the plaintiffs on the basis of the registered sale deed executed in their favour in the year 1947 and the entries made in the Revenue Records showing that they are owners of the concerned land. He further urged that the plaintiffs were also relying on the order made by the City Survey Officer, which was made after hearing both the sides, namely, the plaintiffs and defendants and according to him, that order has become final between the parties in as much as the order has not been challenged by the defendants at any point of time. Shri Pradhan further urged that the order of the Revenue Authorities, refusing to take entry pursuant to the gift-deed dated 26.10.59, executed by the defendant No.2 in favour of the defendant No.1 has become final in as much as that order has never been challenged by the defendants. In the submission of Shri Pradhan the orders made by the Revenue Officers and the entries are taken in the Revenue Records in the normal course of business. Therefore, in terms of the provisions of section 114 of the Evidence Act, the entries are presumed to be correct unless proved to be contrary and therefore, if the defendant felt aggrieved by the entries that were made in the Revenue records, it was for the defendant to file a suit and challenge the entries. In the submission of Shri Pradhan as at no point of time the entries made in the revenue records have been challenged by the defendants, the trial Court was not justified in dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiffs.