The Trial Court had not considered the circumstances like contentions made by Anjanabai in revenue proceeding.
Admittedly, the name of plaintiff No. 1 was entered in the revenue record on the basis of mutation, which was made in a proceeding started by Anjanabai. Statement of Anjanabai was recorded in that proceeding. That record is relevant and needs to be considered in view of provision of section 32 of Evidence Act.
Bombay High Court
Subhash vs Maroti on 11 June, 2014
Bench: T.V. Nalawade
Citation; 2015(2)ALLMR144
