ALIA MANGAMMA Vs. BHIMIREDDI VENKATA REDDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners herein are defendants in O. S. 265 of 1953, District Munsii's Court, Tenali. In that suit a preliminary decree was passed and an application in I.A, 1479/66 was filed by the respondents for determining the mesne profits pursuant to the preliminary decree. A Commissioner was appointed to enquire into the mesne profits. In the course of the enquiry the petitioners herein filed a certified copy of the extraet from the Adangal which was marked as Ex, R. 1 which according to them would support their contention regarding the mesne profits. The Commissioner marked the document subject to proof, relevancy and admissibility. In his order he went elaborately into the question of the admissibility of the document and ultimately came to the conclusion that the contents of Ex. R. 1 cannot be proved by the production of the certified copy and therefore, Ex. R. 1 had to be rejected, Having regard to the view of the Commissioner the petitioners herein filed It A. 1479/66 under Section 151 C. P. C. before the learned District Munisif to decide the question whether or not Ex. R. 1 marked before the Commissioner is admissible .The learned District Munsif also referred to the discussion on this aspect by the Commissioner; He held that the Adangal prepared by the Karnam cannot be said to be a public document within the meaning of Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, as the entries have to be scrutinised by the superior officers ia the Revenue Department from time to time. He referred to the observation of the Commissioner that according to rules 60% of the entries in the Adangal made by the Karnam have to be verified by the Revenue Inspector, 25% by the Tahsildar and the rest by the Revenue Divisional Officer. In view of this rale, the learned District Munsif held that the entries prepared by the Karnam iu the Adangal cannot be taken as Gospel truth without examining the Karnam who prepared the entries or the persons who gave the information to the karnam for making those entries in the Adangal. He therefore held that without examining him Ex. Ri 1 cannot be received in evidence in proof of the nature of the crops and the yield from the suit landst At the outset I may point out that it was not within the province of the Commissioner either to discuss or give a decision on the question of the admissibility of the document produced before him.

(2.) That is a matter which has to be decided by the Court, The Commissioner seems to have arrogated to himself the functions of a Court in deciding upon the mode of proof, admissibility etc., of the document , Ex. R. 1, The Court below also erred when the matter came up before it in attaching undue importance to the observations of the Commissioner in this regard and practically being influenced by those observationsi The learned District Munsif says that no authority was cited to show that Adangal is a public document within the meaning of section 74 of the Evidence Act. In the absence of any direct authority on the point he should have considered the provisions of the Act and based his decision on those provisions, Section 74 of the Evidence Act in so far as relevant for the present purpose is as follows :-

(3.) In Maclean's Manual of Madras Administration in the Chapter of 'Land Revenue Accounts and returns' it is stated as follows :-