1977 (1) TMI 155 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Admission of tenancy by the respondent.
2. Presumption of correctness of the record of rights u/s 135-J of the Bombay Land Revenue Code 1879.
3. Justification of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in setting aside findings of fact due to error of law.

Summary:

1. Admission of Tenancy by the Respondent:
The appellant contended that the respondent's admission confirmed the appellant's tenancy. However, the Court found three infirmities in this claim. Firstly, the respondent's deposition regarding Survey No. 201/2 was irrelevant and inadmissible in the context of Survey Nos. 194/15 and 200/29. Secondly, the respondent was not confronted with the alleged admission during cross-examination, violating Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act. Thirdly, the alleged admission was neither clear nor unequivocal, as the respondent stated he took no rent and the land was fallow. The Court concluded that the High Court was correct in rejecting the appellant's contention of admission.

2. Presumption of Correctness of the Record of Rights:
The appellant argued that the record of rights indicated his tenancy. The High Court noted that the Mamlatdar and the Deputy Collector found the appellant had not cultivated the land as a tenant. The record of rights showed inconsistencies, such as the Mode "I" indicating the respondent as the cultivator, which contradicted the appellant's claim. The High Court determined that the entries in the record of rights were unreliable and did not reflect the true facts. The Court agreed with the High Court that no presumption of correctness could arise from these records, especially when oral evidence contradicted them and the respondent had no notice of the mutation proceedings.

3. Justification of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal:
The appellant claimed that the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the findings of fact due to an error of law. The Tribunal had held that the appellant's possession since 1956-57 was sufficient evidence of tenancy, criticizing the lower authorities for requiring rent receipts. The Court found that the Tribunal erred by shifting the burden of proof to the respondent and by entertaining the revision without a clear error of law. The Court emphasized that when all evidence is before the Court, the burden of proof becomes immaterial. The Tribunal's decision was deemed incorrect as there was no error of law on the face of the record.

Conclusion:
All three contentions advanced by the appellant failed. The appeal was dismissed with costs.