Land Ownership Dispute: Supreme Court Upholds Presumption of Revenue Records

The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment dated 20 February 2020, addressed a significant land dispute between legal heirs of an ex-ruler and a tenant who claimed tenancy rights over a part of the disputed land. The key issue before the Court was whether the presumption of correctness of revenue records could be rebutted through oral testimony and whether the defendant was a tenant or a trespasser.

Background of the Case

The case originated when the plaintiffs, legal heirs of an ex-ruler of Dhami, filed a suit against the defendant for permanent and mandatory injunction, seeking possession of 8 plots of land measuring 13 Bighas and 14 Biswas. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendant was appointed as a Manager to look after their estate and was required to render accounts to them. The relationship soured, leading to the termination of the defendant’s agency, which resulted in the present suit.

The defendant, however, contested this claim, asserting that he was a tenant paying ‘Galla Batai’ (a share of the produce) for a specified portion of the land. He further argued that the suit was not maintainable before a civil court and should be tried by the revenue court, as the dispute pertained to a landlord-tenant relationship.

Legal Issues and High Court’s Decision

The key legal issues in the case were:

• Whether the defendant was a tenant or merely a Manager as claimed by the plaintiffs?
• Whether the presumption of correctness of revenue records, which showed the plaintiffs as owners in possession, could be rebutted by oral testimony?
• Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to possession of the disputed land?

The trial court initially held that while the plaintiffs had proved ownership of the suit land, the defendant had successfully established tenancy rights over 13 Bighas and 2 Biswas through oral evidence, and thus, the suit was partially decreed.

On appeal, the District Judge overturned this decision, ruling in favor of the plaintiffs and granting them possession. However, the High Court, in a second appeal, reversed the decision and dismissed the suit, concluding that the defendant was indeed a tenant, despite the absence of any tenancy records in the revenue documents.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioners (Plaintiffs) Argued:

• The defendant was merely a Manager and was never a tenant.
• The revenue records (Jamabandi and Khasra Girdawari) consistently showed the plaintiffs as owners in possession and did not record any tenancy rights in favor of the defendant.
• The burden of proving tenancy was on the defendant, which he failed to do.
• Oral testimony could not override statutory presumption attached to revenue records.

Respondent (Defendant) Argued:

• He had been cultivating the land for over 12 years on a ‘Galla Batai’ arrangement, paying half of the produce as rent.
• Multiple witnesses testified in support of his tenancy claim, including persons who had collected rent from him on behalf of the plaintiffs.
• The entries in the revenue records were incorrect and did not reflect the true position on the ground.

Supreme Court’s Analysis and Judgment

The Supreme Court, after examining the evidence and legal provisions, ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. The key findings of the Court were:

1. Presumption of Revenue Records Cannot be Rebutted by Oral Testimony

The Court emphasized the legal principle that entries in revenue records carry a presumption of correctness under Section 45 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1954. These records are prepared and updated periodically based on detailed revenue surveys and cannot be set aside merely on the basis of oral evidence.

The Court observed:

“The presumption of truth attached to the revenue record can be rebutted only on the basis of evidence of impeccable integrity and reliability. The oral evidence can always be adduced contrary to the revenue record, but such oral testimony will not be sufficient to hold that the statutory presumption stands rebutted.”

2. Burden of Proof on the Defendant

The Court reiterated that the burden of proving tenancy was on the defendant, as per Section 109 of the Indian Evidence Act. The defendant’s failure to produce any documentary proof of tenancy (such as rent receipts, lease agreements, or revenue entries) meant that his oral claims could not override the plaintiffs’ ownership rights recorded in official documents.

The Court noted:

“When the question is whether persons are landlord and tenant, and it has been shown that they have been acting as such, the burden of proving that such relationship has ceased is on the person who affirms it.”

3. Revenue Proceedings Not Binding on Civil Courts

The Court rejected the High Court’s reliance on statements recorded in revenue proceedings regarding correction of Khasra Girdawari. It held that such proceedings are summary in nature and do not constitute conclusive proof of tenancy. Only a civil court has jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes regarding ownership and tenancy rights.

4. Tenancy Cannot be Established Without Supporting Documents

The Court referred to past judgments where it was held that tenancy rights must be supported by documentary evidence. In the absence of such proof, claims of tenancy cannot be upheld.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s decision and restored the First Appellate Court’s judgment, thereby allowing the plaintiffs’ suit and granting them possession of the disputed land.

Conclusion

This judgment reinforces the principle that revenue records cannot be disregarded without strong and credible evidence to the contrary. Oral testimony alone is insufficient to rebut statutory presumptions attached to official land records. Additionally, the case highlights the importance of documentary proof in establishing tenancy claims, ensuring that ownership rights are not arbitrarily challenged.

Petitioner Name: Shri Partap Singh (Dead) Through LRs. & Ors..
Respondent Name: Shiv Ram (Dead) Through LRs..
Judgment By: Justice Hemant Gupta, Justice L. Nageswara Rao.
Place Of Incident: Dhami, Himachal Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 20-02-2020.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Shri Partap Singh (D vs Shiv Ram (Dead) Thro Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 20-02-2020.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Property Disputes
See all petitions in Landlord-Tenant Disputes
See all petitions in Specific Performance
See all petitions in Judgment by Hemant Gupta
See all petitions in Judgment by L. Nageswara Rao
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments February 2020
See all petitions in 2020 judgments

See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category