KANHIYA Vs. UMRAO SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the order of S. D. O. , Kishangarh Bas, dated 6. 10. 58 in a matter for correction of entries in Khasra Girdawari against No. 650 for the Svt. years 2011 and 2012. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties present and examined the record as well. These proceedings started on an application by respondent No. 1 that the land under dispute was a bara which had continuously been entered in his name uptill Svt. 2010 but has been wrongly got entered in the name of the appellant and respondent No. 2 in Svt. 2011 and 2012 notwithstanding the continued possession of the respondent No. 1 thereon. It has been urged on behalf of the appellant that when entry for Svt. 2011 and 2012 in both years had been done at the time of inspection in his favour the learned S. D. O. should not have ordered it to be corrected only because the appellant has not been able to explain how he came to have possession over the land in Svt. 2011. 1959, R. R. D. 28, Ghansiram vs. Rai Singh has been cited in support of this contention to show that in such matters the question before the trial court is confined to the actual fact of possession in the Svt. year under dispute and the nature of the same is not a subject matter of the controversy. The trial court should, therefore, have applied its mind only to the question whether the appellant's evidence succeeded in showing his possession during the Svt. years under dispute or not. The principle enunciated in the case cited is beyond dispute. But an entry can be allowed to stand in the name of a party only if the evidence led by him succeeds in showing that he was actually in possession during that particular period. In this present case we find that the learned S. D. O. has granted the application of Respondent No. 1 not only because the appellant has not been able to show how he came to have possession over the land under dispute in Svt. 2011 but also because the evidence led by him was not found to be reliable enough to convince that it was the appellant who was in possession of the land in the years under dispute and not the respondent No. I.

(2.) WE have ourselves carefully gone through the evidence led by the parties and found that the P. W. Chhaju, Harkarana and Ranjit and respondent No. 1 himself have very clearly stated that this land has been in the continuous possession of the Respondent No. 1 for about 20 years or so. The entries in Khasra Girdawari of Svt. 2010 also continued to be in the name of respondent No. 1 himself uptill Svt. 2010. This gave extra credence to the deposition of his witnesses. As against it witnesses Kana and Pokar besides himself and the Patwari Chiranji Lal have been examined on behalf of the appellant. The Patwari has not been able to state how the entry which was continuing to be in the name of respondent No. 1 uptil Svt. 2010 was changed in the name of the appellant all of a sudden in Svt. 2011. He has not substantiated this change by an entry in the diary of events as provided by R. 51 (IV) (13) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Land Records)|rules 1957. His deposition that on 3. 11. 1955 the Tehsildar had visited the village and corrected the entry to be made as usual in the name of the appellant and respondent No. 2 went to show only that the Tehsildar ordered correction of the entry which might have been made otherwise than what it existed in Svt. 2011 and not that by that order he ordered a change to be made in Svt. 2011 itself in favour of the appellant and respondent No. 2. The evidence of Pokar (D. W. 4) also lends to the same conclusion. The appellant and his witnesses Kana and Pokar have alleged that the land under dispute has been in possession of the appellant for about 14 years. This is simply unbelievable, in the absence of the entries in the Khasra Girdawari uptil Svt. 2010 which is on the contrary in favour of respondent No. 1. Pokar deposed himself to be the Panch of the village and stated that it was why he had accompanied the Tehsildar. In that case he should have been able to explain why the entries previous to Svt. 2011 were continuously in the name of respondent No. J. He has however been able to give no explanation for this. This sort of evidence could not be given more credence as compared to the evidence produced by the respondent No. 1. The learned trial court was, therefore, quite justified in rejecting the evidence of the appellant and believing that of respondent No. 1 and ordering the entry to be made in his favour. The orders of the trial court cannot be set aside only on the ground that they also mention that the appellant has not been able so show how he came to have possession over the land in Svt. 2011. This observation can be taken only as having been treated an extra ground for rejecting the evidence produced by him. For while providing by Rule 37 (i) that all changes in respect of possession shall be recorded by the Patwari in Khasra Girdawari it has been also laid down in Rule 51 (IV) (13) of the Rules referred to above that all changes made by the Patwari in the Record and entries at the time or after the Girdawari in cultivating occupancies and rents shall be recorded in the diary of events provided to be kept by the Patwari by Rule 50. Unless any sudden change like the present one is supported by an entry in the diary of events as provided by Rules mentioned above an evidence about possession led by a party in whose favour such an entry has been made may not be reliable to be regarded as reliable and be rejected if the other party in whose favour the entries exist in the immediately preceding years produced an evidence which shows that he has been continuing in continuous possession thereof. A heavy burden of proof lies on the person who claims sudden change like this and he should establish it by an evidence quite unimpeachable and most reliable.