GOVINDA Vs. BADRI

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. Amber, dated 30 -4 54, refusing protection to the applicant under sec. 7 of the Ordinance.

(2.) We have heard the parties and have examined the record as well. In our opinion, the evidence led by the parties before the trial court was not examined in a right perspective and it is no wonder, therefore, that the inferences arrived at by the trial court are manifestly untenable. The applicant alleged before the lower court that he had been in possession of the land in dispute since six years, that he held a patta granted by the Jagirdar that, he was granted receipts up to Svt. 2009 by the Jagirdar and that in Svt. 2010 the Jagirdar refused to grant a receipt and dispossessed the applicant wrongfully on 29.6.54. The Jagirdar Sawai Singh admitted that 10 years ijara of the land in dispute was granted to the appli -cant,that a patta for ijara was executed properly and that the applicant cultivated the land for four years. He however pleaded that for the last two years the applicant had not been cultivating the land as the same is being cultivated by Badri and Chhotu opposite parties. On behalf of the applicant Gopinath Patwari of the Jagirdar was produced who testified to the fact that a patta was granted to the applicant by the Jagirdar in Svt. 2004 and that he had been in continuous posses sion since then. It Was also stated by Gopinath that in Svt. 2009 rent for the land was paid by the applicant and a receipt was granted by him on behalf of the Jagirdar. He has also testified to the receipts produced by the applicant for Svt. years 2004 to 2008. It is significant to note in this connection that the Jagirdar had stated the Gopinath was in his employ and was maintaining the accounts, khatas etc. of the jagir. No patta or any rent receipts have been produced by the opposite party. On behalf of the opposite party a certified copy of the gasht girdavari for Svt. 2003 and 2009 has been produced in the case wherein the land in dispute has been shown in the khatedari of the applicant and the opposite party Badri has been shown as a shikmi kashtkar, Evidently the entries as they stand are against the versions of both the parties. The applicant claims that he himself had been in possession and that Badri was never in possession of the land in dispute. The contention of the opposite party is that they were in possession not as subtenants under Govinda but as tenants directly under the Jagirdar. As pointed out above, no patta granted by the Jagirdar or any receipt for payment of rent has been produced by the opposite party. The Jagirdar has not been able to explain as to why after being in possession for four years the applicant Govinda suddenly surrendered the land. In fact the version put fourth by the opposite party is negatived by the record of the Jagirdar himself as pointed out clearly by the Patwari Gopinath of the thikana. Ordinarily the entries in the gasht girdavari are relevant and should be duly considered, but where reasonable doubts exist as to their genuine nature they have certainly to be viewed with much caution and scrutiny. In the present case these entries deserve rejection for a variety of reasons. In the first place the record of the Jagirdar the patta and the rent receipts granted by the Jagirdar are clearly opposed to these entries, inasmuch as Govinda may be presumed to be in possession when rents were paid by him in Svt. 2008 and 2009 in the ordinary course of events. Secondly. Badri has himself denied his status as a subtenant under the applicant Govinda and this is enough to discredit the entries of gasht girdavari. Looking to the circumstances, therefore we hold that the applicant had been in possession of the land in dispute khasra Nos. 459/1 and 459/2 village Razda, Tehsil Amber and was dispossessed wrongfully by the opposite party within three months next prior to the presentation of the application before the lower court. He is therefore, clearly entitled to reinstatement under sec. 7 of the Ordinance. We would, therefore, allow this revision, set aside the order of the lower court and direct that the applicant shall be reinstated over the land in dispute.