PRABHATI Vs. BHAJJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff whose suit for recovery of over the land in dispute was decreed by the trial court but was dismissed in appeal by the first appellate court.

(2.) Put briefly the facts of the case are that Prabhati Lal brought a suit against Bhajjan Murli, Bida, Kishen and Mangal, contesting defendants, with Bhanwarji and Dhan singh as proforma defendants in the court of the Assistant Collector, Lachmangarh on 3.3.52 with the allegations that the plaintiff and the proforma defendants have been cultivating the land in dispute jointly, that defendants Murli etc. threatened to interfere with their possession where upon the plaintiff brought a suit for grant of a Permanent injunction which was rejected summarily. Thereafter the plaintiff filed a suit in the court of the Civil Judge and subsequently on 10.10.51 the defendants dispossessed him wrongfully. The contesting defendants denied the allegations in the plaint and pleaded that they had be possession of the land since long. The trial court by its judgment dated 3.10.52 granted a decree in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the entire land in dispute. The defendants went up in appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Jaipur and as can be gathered from the judgment of the appellate court it was conceded by Prabhati that he was entitled to a decree for restoration of possession over one -half of the land only. The suit was remanded by the appellate court on 26.9.53. As a result of further enquiry the trial court granted a 1 8.8.55 in respect of one -fourth portion of the disputed land (khasra Nos. 529 to 537 in village Behrampur, Tehsil Lachhmangarh, District Alwar.) Against this decision both the parties went up in appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Jaipur The defendants appeal was allowed and the plaintiffs suit was rejected in toto. Hence this second appeal by the plaintiff

(3.) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record as well. The documentary evidence consists of certified copies of of gasht girdawari for Svt. years 2003 to 2007. In Svt. 2003 the plaintiff is shown as having cultivated this land to the extent of two bullocks only out of a total of four bullocks; in other words, one half of the land in dispute. This position obtains uniformly in the entries relating to Svt. Years 2004 and 2005. In Svt. 2006 there appears a change in entries as the plaintif is shown as being in possession one -forth portion only. In this year the proforma defendants are shown as possessing one -fourth and the residuary one -half being in possession of the defendants. In Svt. 2007 there is yet another change in the revenue, records as a result whereof the contesting defendants go out of the picture entirely and the land is shown as being in the possession of the plaintiff to the extent of one -half, the other half being in the possession of the proforma defendants. The plaintiff alleged that after the completion of Svt. year 2006, the defendants surrendered their tenancy and hence in the following year the entire possession was with him and the proforma defendants. The trial Court held that the plea of relinquishment does not stand proved at all and that the actual state of affairs in Svt. 2007 should be deemed to be as that obtaining in the last year and hence the plaintiff was deemed to be in possession of one -fourth and was granted a relief to that extent accordingly. The learned Additional Commissioner has rejected all these entries on the ground that "if entries in the khasra deep are found to be incorrect on any material articular they must be recorded as entirely unreliable and not as partly reliable and partly unreliable.........No presumption of truth or genuineness attaches to the entries in the khasra -teep. It therefore stands to reason that if they are found to be definitely incorrect even partly they should be unhesitatingly rejected as utterly unreliable." Evidently there appears to be some misconception in the mind of the learned Additional Commissioner while adopting this line of reasoning. Entries in annual revenue record may not be having any presumption of genuineness attaching to them but nevertheless they are relevant within the meaning of sec. 35 of the Indian Evidence Act. The evidentiary value of such record varies with the circumstances under which they are made. But where they are made after a careful public enquiry by a revenue officer who is in duty bound to record facts as he finds them then they become reliable though not conclusive evidence of those facts. Reliance is to be placed upon such entries not because any presumption of genuineness attaches to them but because they are good evidence of possession. But if facts contrary to them stand proved by other reliable evidence then of course the evidentiary value of the entries, is much diminished. But unless there is such evidence, the entries, are not to be rejected merely on the basis of distrust or conjectures. We have to see how far the principles laid down above can apply to the present case. There is no dispute as regard the correctness of the entries for Svt. years 2003, 2004 and 2005 As far as Svt. 2006 is concerned it is an admitted fact that the defendants came in possession during this year as shown in the khasra teep. These circumstances enhance the credibility of the entries for they show that they were made in accordance with the facts of possession as existing on the site. The dispute relates to Svt. 2007. It is one thing to reject an entry which is in dispute but it is an entirely different thing to reject even those entries which are out of the bounds of controversy. If the entries of Svt. 2007 are disputed and the court is unable to come to a definite finding for cogent reasons it would be well within its rights to reject the same. But to argue from the rejection of this entry that the entries of the previous years also should be rejected is a proposition to which we cannot subscribe. As pointed out above, very entry has to be adjudged in the context of events surrounding it and where the parties have no serious challenge to their veracity it would not be proper to reject them. Thus we are of the opinion that even alter rejecting entries of Svt. 2007 the trial court was perfectly justified in believing the entries of the previous years. We are inclined to agree with the lower appellate court that the entries of Svt. 2007 do not deserve acceptance. In the first place, the plaintiff had failed to prove surrender as set up by him. Secondly there has been no corresponding entry in the village diary showing change in cultivation from Svt. 2006 to Svt. 2007. For these reasons the entries of Svt. 2007 may be disbelieved. But for this very reason it can be presumed that the possession in Svt. 2007 was in accordance with the entries of the last year and that the plaintiff was in possession over one -fourth portion as no entry for change is to be found in the village diary and the defendants have also not alleged or proved any relinquishment by the plaintiff. Thus the finding of the trial court as regards the plaintiff being in possession over one -forth share in Svt. 2007 is proper and justifiable.