LAWS(RAJ)-1955-11-20

SUA Vs. CHITARMAL

Decided On November 09, 1955
SUA Appellant
V/S
CHITARMAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal has been filed by the defendants against an appellate decree of the Additional Commissioner, Jaipur reversing the decree of the trial court and decreeing the respondents suit for recovery of possession over the land in dispute.

(2.) We have heard the counsel appearing for the parties and have gone through the record as well. The only contention raised on behalf of the appellant before us is that no evidence was led by the respondent to prove the documents produced by him There is hardly any substance in this contention. As laid down in sec. 77 of the Indian Evidence Act certified copies of public documents prepared in accordance with the provisions of sec. 76 of the Act may be produced in proof of the contents of the public documents of which they purport to be copies, and presumption as to genuineness of certified copies attaches to them as provided in sec. 79 of the Act. The trial court ought to have marked these documents as Exhibits when they were produced before it. But this omission on the part of the trial court cannot exclude them from being legally admissible. It is clear from the patta and the entries in the gasht girdawari that the respondent is the Khatedar tenant of the land in dispute and had been in possession of the same through his sub -tenants till he was dispossessed wrongfully by the appellants. The appellants contention is that they were admitted to tenancy by one Jaganlal who they allege to be a co -tenant with the respondent. It is clear that Jaganlals name finds no mention in any land records, parcha chakbandi or gasht girdawari. The plea stands unsubstantiated and had been rightly disbelieved by the learned Additional Commissioner. The first appellate court has reversed the finding of the trial court on a question of fact, but its decision is in complete harmony with the weight of evidence on record, and the finding of the trial court is manifestly untenable. There is no substance in this appeal which is hereby rejected. about:blank 7/19/2016