9911796707
TMI Blog1977 (1) TMI 155X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal by order dated 19 March, 1954 rejected the claim of the appellant to tenancy in respect of the land covered by Survey Nos. 200/29 and 194/15. Thereafter the respondent filed an application on 24 January 1963 under section 70(b) of the Bombay Act for a declaration that the appellant was not tenant of the remaining two Survey Nos.201/2 and 194/13. The respondent alleged that he never leased the land to the appellant. The respondent further said that he came to know about entry in the record of rights for the years 1955-56 on the strength of mutation alleged to have been made on 30 January 1956 and sanctioned on 13 November 1956. This application of the respondent was resisted by the appellant on the ground that he was tenant of these two survey Nos. 201/2 and 194/13. The matter was heard by the Mamlatdar. By an order dated 31 July 1963 the Mamlatdar rejected the claim of the appellant to be. a tenant. Thereafter the matter was taken up to the District Deputy Collector. The Deputy Collector by his order dated 27 June 1966 upheld the Mamlatdar's order. Before the Mamlatdar and the Deputy Collector the respondent examined himself. He was cross examined and his attention ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s examination it was suggested to the respondent that the land bearing Survey No. 201/2 belonged to the respondent and that the appellant is a tenant in the land. The respondent said as follows: The land Survey No. '201/2 situate in Balkum belongs to me in Balkum. The applicant is a tenant in the said land. I do not take the rent in respect of the said land ........ I have prior to 15-20 years purchased this land from Sitaram Bhau. Even the land bearing S. No. 201/2 was purchased right from him. I have never cultivated the land bearings S. No. 201/2. It was barren at that time. When this land was to be acquired I learnt whether Sitaram Bhau was cultivating this land .... or whether his name has been entered as a tenant against this land(?) I cannot say as to whose land is around the land beating S. No. 201/2 or other Land. This evidence read in its entirety is not an admission at all. A person who says that 'I have taken no rent' obviously says that there is no relationship of landlord or tenant. The first infirmity in regard to this admission is that whatever was said by the respondent in regard to Survey No. 201/2 is irrelevant and inadmissible in the depos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Indian Evidence Act that 'admission is not conclusive proof' are to be considered in regard ,to two features of evidence. First, what weight is to be attached to an admission? In order to attach weight it has to be found out whether the admission is clear, unambiguous and is a relevant piece of evidence. Second, even if the admission is proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act and if it is to be used against the party who has made it, it is sound that if a witness is under cross examination on oath, he should be given an opportunity if the document are to be used against him, to tender his explanation and to clear up the point of ambiguity or dispute. This is a general salutary and intelligible rule (see Bal Gangadhar Tilak v. Shrinivas Pandit 42 Indian Appeals 135 at page 147). The Judicial Committee in that case said, it has to be observed with regret and with surprise that the general principle and the specific statutory provisions have not been followed . The general principle is that before any person is to be faced with any statement he should be given an opportunity to see that statement and to answer the same. The specific statutory provision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mode' and 'Crops fallows'. The Mode is shown as I and under Crops and fallows entry 'Paddy' is shown. The High Court referred to this feature of the record of rights Mode I means that the respondent cultivated as owner of the land that was never even case of the appellant. The High Court rightly said that the irresistible conclusion therefore is that the extracts from the record of rights contain entries which do not have any relation to true facts. If that is the position with regard to these extracts, these cannot be relied on for inference that actually the land was cultivated and paddy crops were grown on the said land. With regard to the record of rights counsel for the appellant said that presumption arises with regard to its correctness. There is no abstract principle that whatever will appear in the record of rights will be presumed to be correct when it is shown by evidence that the entries are not correct. Apart from the intrinsic evidence in the record of rights that they refer to facts which are untrue it also appears that the record of rights have reference to the mutation entry that was made by the Circle Officer on 30 January 1956. Counse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
