Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

35. To substantiate the contention that Sy.No.1 is renumbered as Sy.No.62, the plaintiff has relied on the Commissioner's report marked at Ex.C-4 and the map at Ex.C-

5. In addition to that, the Survey Commissioner (ADLR) appointed by the Court is also examined as Pw6.

- 22 -

NC: 2025:KHC:41822 HC-KAR

36. In his evidence, the Court Commissioner (Pw6) states that Sy.No.1 is renumbered as Sy.No.62. The Court has perused the evidence of the Court Commissioner. On going through the evidence of the Court Commissioner, it is not possible to accept his statement. In the report, he has not stated that Sy.No.1 is renumbered as 62 or Sy.No.1 is renumbered as 47 and later renumbered as Sy.No.62.

- 23 -

NC: 2025:KHC:41822 HC-KAR

39. The one relevant document for consideration is Ex.P9, based on which, the Trial Court has concluded that Sy.No.1 is renumbered as Sy.No.62. The Court has perused the said document. It is the certified copy of Form No.6/record of rights. Said Form No.6/record of rights reveals that Sy.No.1 is renumbered as Sy.No.47 in terms of the order bearing ADLR No.181/1982-83 dated 08.09.1982 and the confirmation order dated 20.11.1982 passed by the Tahsildar.

40. It is relevant to notice that the defendants have produced the endorsement issued by ADLR, which is marked at Ex.D23. This is the document dated 28.08.2019, and this document was produced after the matter was remanded by this Court to record additional evidence.

41. The office of the ADLR, Srinivasapura taluk, has issued the endorsement stating that the order No.181/1982-83 dated 08.09.1982 about renumbering of Sy.No.1 as Sy.No.47 is not found in the original records.

42. Ex.P-9 speaks about the renumbering of Sy.No.1 as 47, and Ex.D-23 is an endorsement which says that no such

- 24 -

NC: 2025:KHC:41822 HC-KAR renumbering has taken place. Now the Court has to decide whether Ex.P9 is valid or Ex.D-23 is valid.

43. It is relevant to notice that Ex.P9 is not an order relating to renumbering. It is an entry in the record of right which would carry certain presumptive value unless rebutted. Ex.D-23, on the other hand, is the endorsement issued on an application filed by the defendants to furnish a copy of the order referred to in Ex.P9, the entry in the record of rights. The office of the ADLR Srinivasapura Taluk issued an endorsement stating that such an order is not found. In a way, the presumption arising from Ex.P9 that Sy.No.1 is renumbered as 47 is rebutted.