KALU ALIAS CHIRANJI Vs. RUDA ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision application under sec. 10 (2) - Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, 1949 - against an order of the S. D. O. Raigarh dated 5. 8. 54, refusing Protection to the applicant under sec. 7 of the Ordinance.

(2.) WE have heard the counsel appearing for the parties and have examined the record as well. It can atonce be stated that the learned lower court has failed to appreciate the evidence in a right perspective with the result that it has arrived at findings which are wholly untenable and entirely against the weight of the evidence on record. The applicant claimed reinstatement over 8 khasra numbers on the ground that he was admitted to tenancy by the opposite party in Svt. 2007, that he continued in possession in Svt. 2008 and 2009 and that in Svt. 2010 on 3. 7. 53 he was dispossessed wrongfully. The opposite party in his written statement denied all the allegations of the applicant and stated that the applicant had never been in possession of the land in dispute which has however, since been in possession of the opposite party himself. The applicant in his evidence produced a patta Ex. P. I and a copy of the gasht girdavari for Svt. years 2007, 2008 and 2009. The opposite party when confronted with this patta indulged in a lot of prevarication, sometimes admitting its execution, sometimes denying it. sometimes stating that it was signed by him but denying the same immediately after. Ultimately he admitted that the patta was executed by him and bore his signatures. The lower court has observed this demeanour of the witness in the record. It has however, ignored denied or admitted the patta on the ground that no attempts were made to establish the identity of the land included in the patta with that of the application. This is manifestly absurd. The patta gives the names of all the fields, and what is more important is the fact that the genuineness of these names has been admitted by the opposite party himself in his statement before the lower court. There is thus no scope to doubt that the identity stands established. When confronted with this patta the opposite party admitted that the applicant was in possession in Svt. 2008 of one filed only and that he had nothing to do with the other fields. While arguing the case for the opposite party the learned counsel admitted before us that the applicant was in possession of all the khasra numbers in Svt. 2007 and that in Svt. 2008 this possession remained only upon one khasra number as the others went in possession of the opposite party. This is, to our mind, evidently a product of after-thought and has been invented to explain the inconvenient position into which the opposite party finds himself bulked by their reproachable evidence of the applicant. if the opposite party had stated in his written statement that the applicant was in possession in Svt. 2007 over all the fields, that in Svt. 2001 he was in possession over one field, the position would have been entirely different. Hence as far as the patta is concerned, we have no hesitation in holding that it stands fully proved; that it relates to the land in dispute and that in accordance with the terms of the patta the applicant was put in possession in Svt. 2007 over all the khasra numbers in dispute.