MURLI Vs. KUNDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been filed against an appellate order of the Additional Commissioner Jaipur dated 29 -3 -55 in a case regarding correction of entries in khasra teep.

(2.) Murli applied to the S.D.O. Deeg on 8 -7 -53 on his own as also on behalf of Hari Singh, minor applicant, that the applicants were in possession of l/4th share of fields No. 79, 136,444 of village Mandwa Kalan, Tehsil Nagar, as land owners and had themselves cultivated the same in Svt. 2009; that they had been in possession of the land in dispute in the previous year also but the Tehsildar at the time of checking of the khasra teep entries of Svt. 2009 had wrongly ordered the entries to be made in favour of the opposite party and therefore the entries might be corrected. The S.D.O. after proper enquiry dismissed the application on the ground that the applicants were not able to prove their possession over the land in dispute in Svt. 2009. The applicants then filed an appeal against this order before the learned Collector, Bharatpur who reversed the finding of the trial court and ordered the name of the applicants to be substituted for that of the opposite party in the khasra teep of Svt. 2009. On second appeal before the Additional Commissioner by Kundan, opposite party, the learned Additional Commissioner, allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Collector and restored that of the S.D.O. Hence this revision by Murli before the Board.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have also examined the record of the case. The only ground urged in support of this revision by the counsel for the applicant before me is that the lower appellate court had failed to appreciate the evidence produced in the case and had wrongly interpreted Sec. 114 of the Indian Evidence Act. There is hardly any substance in this contention. Presumptions under Sec. 114 of the Indian Evidence Act are not presumptions of law but they are presumptions of fact and are therefore like other presumptions discretionary and not obligatory. The effect of Sec.114 of the Indian Evidence Act is therefore that the courts of justice should use their common sence and experience in each case and there are no technical rules to guide them in such matters. The presumptions that may be raised in this connection are, like other presumptions, of fact rebuttable either by the partys own evidence or by the opposite party. It is evident from a perusal of the judgment of the learned Additional Commissioner that he has fully discussed the evidence led in the case and has given cogent and convincing reasons for not drawing any presumption as to the applicants possession in Svt. 2009. I am reluctant in this revision to go into points of fact. The learned counsel for the applicants has not been able to show me that the lower court had exercise jurisdiction vested in it or had exceeded the jurisdiction or committed any irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction. In the circumstances I see no reason interfere with the finding of the lower court. The revision is hereby rejected.