Harish Chander & Ors v. Ghisa Ram and Anr.

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: A. D. Koshal
Baharul Islam
Judgment Date: 1980-12-18
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal dismissed; decree in favor of respondent No. 1 affirmed; mesne profits deposited in the courts below shall be refunded to the respondent forthwith.
Final Disposition: Appeal dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Harish Chander and others

Respondents

Ghisa Ram
Anr.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Harbans Singh

Counsels for Respondents

• Hardayal Hardy
• B. Datta

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Supreme Court decision concerns a pre-emption dispute over land, framed under the Punjab Land Revenue Act. The plaintiff (respondent No. 1) sought possession by pre-emption of land sold in 1967 by respondents 2 to 4 to the appellants. The core issue was whether the plaintiff was in possession as a tenant on the relevant date and thus entitled to pre-empt the sale. The trial court and the Punjab and Haryana High Court relied on revenue records, notably Jamabandi for 1959–60 and subsequent Khasra-girdawaris, which listed respondent No. 1 as a tenant and were treated as establishing his tenancy. The appellants challenged these findings, arguing that documents such as Ex. A31 (an application to correct entries), the sale deed, and the plaint indicate they had been in possession as tenants since 1965, and that the revenue entries should not be accepted at face value. The Court, however, held that a presumption of truth attaches to Jamabandi entries under s. 44 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, which is rebuttable but not displaced in this case. Additionally, under s. 109 of the Indian Evidence Act, once two parties are shown to be in a landlord-tenant relationship, the burden of proving cessation lies with the party asserting it. On this evidence, the Court affirmed the factual finding that the plaintiff remained a tenant up to the suit. The appeal was dismissed with costs, and the decree in favor of the plaintiff stood. The mesne profits, deposited in courts below, were to be refunded promptly.

Provisions of Law Cited

Punjab Land Revenue Act, s. 44Indian Evidence Act, s. 109

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Presumption of truth of Jamabandi entries under s. 44 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act
Burden of proving cessation of landlord-tenant relationship under s. 109 of the Indian Evidence Act

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants relied on documents including Ex. A31, the sale deed, and the plaint to show they had been in possession as tenants since 1965. They contended that the revenue entries (jamabandi and khasra girdawaris) could be rebutted and questioned, arguing that the recitals in the sale deed and the plaint did not conclusively establish the plaintiff’s tenancy and that possession should be determined by the newer documents rather than the revenue records.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents defended the lower courts’ reliance on jamabandi entries (1959–60 onward) showing tenancy of the plaintiff, arguing that the plaintiff remained in possession as a tenant up to the suit. They invoked s. 109 of the Indian Evidence Act to maintain that the burden lies on the appellant to prove that the tenancy ceased, and asserted that the documents relied upon by the appellants do not negate the established tenancy, thus supporting the decree in favor of the plaintiff.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

###### • ##### • ###### • HARISH CHANDER & ORS . _v._ QHISA MM, AND ANR. _Decembu_ 18, 1980 [A. D. Kosiw. AND BAHARUL ISLAM, JJ.] _Puniab Land Revenue Act, Section_ 44 _and Rule_ I _contained in Section_ 109 _Evidence_ _Act-Scope_ _of-Suit_ _of_ _pre-emption of_ _land_ _on the ground that the_ _plai11tiff_ _was_ _a tenant-Presumption_ _of_ _truth_ _of entries in favour_ _of_ _the_ _revenue_ _records like lamabandi and Khasra Girdawaris._ Dismissing the defendant's appeal and affirming the decree in favour of tho plail)).iff, the Court. HELD : A presumption of truth attaches to the entries in the Jamabandi for the year 1959-60 showing the defendant-respondents _as_ a tenant, in view of the provisions of Section 44 of the, Punjab Land Revenue Act. That presumption is no doubt rebuttable, but, in the instant case, no attempt has been made to displace it. [407C-D] A B c D ###### .. Further, once that presumption is raised, still another comes. to the aid of respo_ndent No. 1 by reason of the rule contained iu Section 109 of the Indian Evidence Act, namely, that when two persons have been shown to stat;Ld to each other in the relatibnship of landlord and tenant. the burden of proving that such relationship has ceased, is on the party who so asserts. It may, therefore, be legitimately presumed that the plaintiff continued to possess the land as a tenant E till the institution of the suit. [407D"E] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2150 of 1970. Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 27-7-1980 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in R.S. No. 737/ 7P. _,:.I_ _Harbans Singh_ for th>~ Appellant. _Hardayal Hardy_ and _B. Datta,_ for the R,e1pondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by F G ##### • 1 KOSHAL, J.-This appeal by special leave is dir~cted against the judgment dated July 27, 1970 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana affinning the decrees passed by the trial court and the first appellate court in a suit for possession by way of pre-emption of the land in dispute in favour of plaintiff-respondent No. 1 on the ground that he was a tenant of the disputed land when it was sold to the. H appellants by respondents Nos. 2 to 4 through a registered sale deed dated September 29, 1967. 10-57 SCl/81 ## • J A B c D E F G H 406 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1981] 2 S.C.R. 2. The suit was resisted by the appellants with the counter-claim that they, and not respondent No. 1, were in possession of the land on the relevant date as tenants inasmuch as it had been leased out to them by their vendor Kanti Prasad two years prior to the sale, _i.e.,_ in the year 1965. The decrees passed by the courts below proceed on the basis of evidence to the effect that the name of respoudent No. 1 was recorded as a tenant in the Jamabandi for the year 1959-60 (Ex. P. 1) and consistently thereafter till the year 1968 (Khasragirdawaris Bxs. P. 2 to P. 7). Apart from the oral evidence there is no material on the record which may indicate the falsity of any of the entries in the revenue records and we are of the opinion that the lower courts were fully justified in relying on them. Learned counsel for the appellants relies upon three documents in support of his contention that the Khasra-girdawaris should not be believed. First in point of time is an application (Ex. A31) which was sent to the concerned Deputy Commissioner through the military authorities by one of the appellants who was an army hand. That application is dated December 11, 1967 and states that the land in dispute was taken by him on lease from Kanti Prasad in the year 1965 and prays that the Khasra-girdawari should be corrected accordingly. The second is the sale-deed itself in which appears a recital to the effect that on the date of the sale the vendors had been in possession of the land covered by it for the preceding two years. The third is the plaint itself which seeks "possession by way of pre-emption". None of these documents is of any help to the case of the appellants. The recital in the plaint is easily explained. Il is no more than the usual prayer made in suits for pre-emption and may well be interpreted to mean that possession be granted !o the plaintiff by the decree in his capacity of a pre-emptor (and not that of a mere tenant) . It cannot be implied therefrom that the plaintiff was out of actual possession. In fact the case made out in the plaint was specifically founded on the plea that the plaintiff had been in possession of the land in dispnte as a tenant right upto the date of the institution of the suit. Paragraph 4 of the plaint reads : "4. The plaintiff has been continuously cultivating the aforesaid land mentioned in para No. 1 of the plaint, for a long time as non-occupancy tenant and I, the plaintiff, have been cultivating the same even uptil now. The Ven dees are outsiders, therefore, I, the plaintiff have the preferential right of pre-emption." This plea clearly negatives the contention based on the recital contained in the prayer clallse of the plaint. ' ###### • # - I #### .. ##### • ###### • HARISH CHANDER _v._ GHISA RAM _(Koshal,_ _!.)_ 407 The averments appearing in the sale deed and application Ex. A. 31 (which was made about 2t months later) to the effect that the appellants had been in possession of the land as tenants since 1965 appears to have been falsely made in an attempt to defeat prospective pre-emptors. Had it been a correct statement of fact, there is no reason why it should not have found a place in \he agreement of sale which is dated the 24th April, 1967 but in which no mention of delivery of possession of the land to the appellants is made. Nor is any cogent explanation forthcoming for the fact that no attempt was made by any of the appellants to have their possession over the land as tenants made the subject-matter of an entry in the relevant records at any time before the sale deed was registered. No suspicion can attach to the entries in the jamabandi for the year 1959-60, nor have the contents of that document been assailed before ns. A presumption of truth attaches to those entries in view of the provisions of s. 44 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act. That presumption is no doubt rebuttable but no attempt has been made to displace it. Further, once that presumption is raised, still another comes to the aid of respondent No. 1 by reason of the rule contained in s. 109 of the Indian Evidence Act, namely, that when two persons have been shown to stand to each other in the relationship of landlord and tenant, the r'.!fden of proving that such relationship has .ceased, is on the party who so asserts. It may therefore be legitimately presumed that the plaintiff continued to possess the land as a tenant till the institution of the suit. Even though the question of possessio.n of the plaintiff as a tenant is a question of fact which is concluded by concurrent findings arrived at by the courts below, we confirm these findings after consi deration of the relevant material. F 3. The decree passed in favour of respondent No. 1 is not challenged on any other ground. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs. All mesne profits deposited by respondent No. 1 in the courts below shall be paid back to him forthwith . G V.D.K. _Appeal_ _dismissed._ A B ###### c D E ! ### ' I