NIRANJAN NATH Vs. MANORANJAN NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. D.R. Chowdhury, learned counsel appeaing for the review petitioner as well as Mr. R. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

(2.) The review petitioner has fundamentally taken the ground which can be encapsulated in the following language as employed by the review petitioner. This Court by over sight failed to appreciate the entries made under column 24 against the plot No.2366/4350 corresponding in Khatian No.1105 (Exbt.2). In the said column the name of the defendant No.3, Niranjan Nath (the review petitioner) has been shown as the forcible possessor since 1380 BS i.e., 1383 TE. Similarly, in R.S Khatian No.709/2 (Exbt-4) in the remark column No.16. It has been provided that the land is not transferable within 10(ten) years from 1382 BS. This is in respect of the allotted land which has been described in the said khatian.

(3.) Evidently, appreciation of those documents [Exbt.2 and Exbt.4) was made within the jurisdictional limitation. Hence, it is not a case of non-appreciation. The question therefore that as such partly remains whether the court has mis-appreciated the entires. There cannot be any amount of doubt that the entries of column 16 or 24 as the case may be, are the entries which are of rebuttable nature under Section 43(3) TLR and LR act 1960 which provides that such entires, unless rebutted, do carry presumption of being correct. The question therefore is if the entires are shown not to be correct by a rebuttable evidence, what will the consequence be of such evidence. Since those entires are fundamentally contingent in nature those simply cannot be relied by the Civil Court. The Civil Court has to follow the test of rebuttal for any presumption as to the existence of any fact. Here the same thing as happened.