Supreme Court: Presumption of truth attached to record of right can not be rebutted by oral evidence

 Therefore, we find that the presumption of truth attached to the
record-of-rights can be rebutted only if there is a fraud in the entry
or the entry was surreptitiously made or that prescribed procedure
was not followed. It will not be proper to rely on the oral evidence to
rebut the statutory presumption as the credibility of oral evidence
vis-a-vis documentary evidence is at a much weaker level.
25. In view thereof, we find that the High Court has erred in law in
allowing the defendant's appeal relying upon oral evidence to rebut
the statutory presumption of truth attached to the revenue record.
The onus of proof was placed on the defendant by the learned trial
court. The burden is on the person who asserts such a relationship
as per Section 109 of the Evidence Act. The defendant has failed to

rebut the presumption of truth on the basis of reliable, trustworthy
and cogent documentary evidence to prove the relationship of a
tenant.

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1511 OF 2020

SHRI PARTAP SINGH  Vs  SHIV RAM 

Dated:FEBRUARY 20, 2020.
HEMANT GUPTA, J.

Print Page

Whether Hindu Daughter After Converting To Islam is entitled to Inherit Property of her parents?

The change of religion and loss of caste have long ceased

to be the grounds of forfeiture of property and the only

disqualification to inheritance on the ground that the person

has ceased to be a Hindu is confined to the heirs of such

convert (Section 26). The disqualification does not affect the

convert himself or herself. This being the position, I have no

hesitation to hold that the applicant who is admittedly a sister

of the private respondents, i.e. the daughter of late Bhikhabhai

Patel, is entitled to succeed in getting her name mutated in the

record of rights as one of the legal heirs. The provisions

contained in Section 26 of the Hindu Succession Act is the only

provision dealing with the right of succession of children born

to a convert after the conversion. However, this provision does

not disqualify the convert himself from succeeding to the

property of the Hindu father.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15825 of 2017

NAYANABEN FIROZKHAN PATHAN @ NASIMBANU FIROZKHAN PATHAN.

V 

PATEL SHANTABEN BHIKHABHAI & 4.

CORAM:  MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA

Date : 26/09/2017

Print Page

Whether it is mandatory to annex certified copy of record of right along with plaint in suit relating to land?

In fact, as per Section 132(1) of the Land Revenue Act, 1964, the plaintiff or applicant in a suit or application should annex to the plaint or application, a certified copy of the record of rights relevant to such land, provided the suit or application is in respect of an agricultural land. Sub-section (2) mandates that if the plaintiff or applicant fails to do so, the court should give some time within which the same will have to be complied with, lest, the plaint will have to be rejected in terms of VII Rule 11(d), C.P.C. It is unfortunate that the trial court has not looked into these mandatory provisions found in Section 132 of the Land Revenue Act, which is very much relevant to a suit relating to agricultural land. Therefore, all the civil courts of original jurisdiction are expected to look into whether this mandatory requirement is complied with before the registering the suit.

23. Production of a certified copy of the record of rights or a copy of mutation is essential for the court to know as to whether the land is an agricultural land and whether any acquisition is made by the competent authorities. If such record is produced and it is shown that the land in question is already acquired under the relevant provisions of the Land Acquisition Act or any other law in force, the question of grant any relief does not arise. Similarly if the agricultural land is already converted into non-agricultural use, and it is depicted in column Nos. 9 and 10 of RTC, the court can call upon the plaintiff to value the suit under Section 24(b) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, provided the relief of declaration of title is sought. If the land is agricultural land assessed to land revenue, then the court fee will be reckoned for valuation under Section 7(2) of the Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. Therefore, all the civil courts must put up in the check sheet/slip as to whether certified copy of mutation records or index of lands is produced, and if not, to put up a note about the bar of law contemplated under Order VII Rule 11(d), C.P.C. read with Section 132 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

R.S.A. Nos. 1952/2005 and 220/2006

Decided On: 18.03.2016

 Chennappa Gowda  Vs.  N.C. Rajashekara and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:A.V. Chandrashekara, J.

Citation:AIR 2016 (NOC)622 Kar

Print Page

Whether title to property can be transferred on basis of mutation entry?

 But the real crux of this matter is as to what is the legal effect of the said Mutation Entry No. 2053 at Exhibit 45. The trial Court has come to the conclusion that because of the said mutation entry, Sonatai Joti Ghadge got title to the property in question along with other properties. But that finding of the trial Court is not at all correct and proper. It is settled law that mutation entries or entries in the record of rights are made only for the fiscal purpose of recovering revenue. The said entries cannot amount to transfer of the title of the holder of the property in favour the person in whose name the entries are made. Therefore, merely because Bali Pandurang Gharge, father of the present appellant No. 1 happened to make a Vardi application on 3rd of September, 1966 to delete his name and to enter the name at Sonatai Joti Ghadge, that act on his part would not amount to transfer of the property in question and that giving of the Vardi application and certification of the said mutation entry would not create any title in favour of Sonatai Joti Ghadge. Therefore, merely because the name of Sonatai Joti Ghadge is entered in the Kabjedar column of the record of rights on account of the mutation entry at Exh. 45, it could not be said that in law Sonatai got title to the property in question.

Bombay High Court

Abasaheb Bali Gharge And Anr. vs Balaji Ramhari Gharge on 14 October, 1994

Equivalent citations: 1995 (1) BomCR 542:1996(1) MHLJ209

Bench: S Pandit

Print Page