9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (3) TMI 1079X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... our of respondent No. 1 for sale of the aforesaid land for consideration of a sum of ₹ 11,500/-. The appellant alleged that the respondent came into possession upon the said land in pursuance of the said agreement. Subsequently the respondent filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement for sale of the land but the same was allowed to be withdrawn. On 1st of March. 1974 amended Kar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal, the appellant purchased the land from Smt. Bhagawa through a registered sale deed. The Tribunal after remand, permitted the parties to lead evidence and after fresh inquiry rejected the claim of respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1, thereafter, preferred an appeal before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal found that 1st respondent was a tenant of the land on the relevan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Courts below and was never formed part of the record of the case and, therefore, such a document cannot be looked into. We have looked into the record and find that the written statement sought to be relied upon by the appellant's counsel was not filed before the Courts below, and the Courts below had no occasion to consider the case of the party in the light of the said document. Under su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the appellant, but the presumption of correctness of an entry in revenue record cannot be rebutted by a statement in the written statement. Mere statement of fact in the written statement is not a rebuttal of presumption of correctness of an entry in the revenue record. The respondent was recorded as a tenant in the revenue record in the year 1973 and under law the presumption is that the entry ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
