BUDHU Vs. NAHRU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revision petitions can be disposed of conveniently by means of one judgment, as they involve common points for determination. In the case of Civil Revision No. 53 of 1954, a further point for determination arises, as to whether the suit giving rise to it was barred by the provisions of Order 2, Rule 2, C. P. C. I shall refer to that point also in due course.

(2.) (A) The first point to be considered in both the revision petitions is the value of an entry in the Khewat Abadi of Nagar Mandi. The learned District Judge has remarked that there was nothing on the record to show under what law the Khewat Abadi was prepared and what evidentiary value should be attached to the entries therein. He has further remarked that under Section 35, Evidence Act, an entry in any public or other official book, register or record, stating a fact in issue or relevant fact, and made by a public servant in the discharge of his official duty, or by any other person, in performance of a duty specially enjoined by the law of the country, is itself a relevant fact. Entries in question were made by the Patwari, but in the opinion of the learned District Judge, there was nothing to indicate that it was a part of his official duties to make such entries. The entries in the Khewat Abadi, followed certain mutations ordered by the former Ruler of Mandi State, in favour of the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the petitioner . (Mr. D. N. Vaidya) argued that the mutation orders were passed by the Ruler in his capacity as the supreme Executive, Judicial and Legislative Head of the State, and consequently were final and unchallengeable. In support of his argument, Mr. Vaidya cited, inter alia,

(3.) In support of his argument that the orders of the Ruler of Mandi were final and unchallengeable, Mr. Vaidya cited, -- 'Ameer-un-Nissa Begum v. Mahboob Begum', AIR 1955 SC 352 (D), where dealing with the force of Firmans, issued by the Nizam of Hyderabad, their Lordships observed as follows :