Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: pahani in Secretary To Government Of India, ... vs Indira Devi And Another on 21 August, 1996Matching Fragments
5. The learned Trial Judge after appreciation of evidence, oral and documentary, decreed the suit. Hence this first appeal.
6. Smt. A. Chaya Devi, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant would contend that the plaintiffs have utterly failed to prove the title to and possession of the suit land. The learned Counsel elaborating this contention would point out that the findings recorded by the Court below in favour of the plaintiffs are essentially grounded on the entries in the record-of-rights and pahanis of the suit land and those documents cannot be treated as title documents The learned Counsel would also maintain that the burden to prove that the suit land does not form part of GLR Sy, No.586 is on the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs have not discharged that burden at all. The learned Counsel would also maintain that the evidence on record clearly establishes that the suit land forms part of GLR Sy. No.586. On the other hand, Sri B.D. Maheswara Reddy, learned Counsel for respondents - plaintiffs would submit the title to and possession of the suit land is satisfactorily proved by the plaintiffs by adducing oral and documentory evidence; the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants that the burden to prove the fact that the suit land does not form part of GLR Sy. No-586 lies on the plaintiffs is apparently untenable; on the other hand, it is the burden of the respondents-defendants to prove that fact and they have miserably failed to prove that the suit land forms part of GLR Sy No.586.
7. Having regard to the contentions raised before the Court in this first appeal, the following points for determination arise:
(i) Whether the plaintiffs have proved their title to and possession of the suit land?
(ii) Whether the suit land forms part of the GLR Sy. No.586?
It is the case of the plaintiffs that B. V. Prakasa Ruddy was the owner and pattedar of the suit land. It is an agricultural land bearing revenue Sy. No.234 admeasuring Ac.2.33 gts situated at Thokatta village and the said land was leased to one Achaiah and after his death, to his brothers by name Sainna and Jogaiah. All the records-of-rights and pahanis stood in the name of B. V. Prakasa Reddy till his death in the year 1982, and the plaintiff being the successors of the deceased B. V. Prakasa Reddy, their names arc mutated in the records-of-rights and pahanis of the suit land. In support of their plea, the plaintiffs have produced pahanis for the years 1971-72 to 1988-89, the mutation extract dated 20-8-1988 (Ex.A14) and the land revenue receipts Exs.A15 to A30, the demand notice for land revenue for the year 1956 to 1964 (Ex.A31). These documents establish that Late Sri B. V. Prakasa Reddy was the owner and occupier of the suit land till his death and after his death the plaintiffs inherited the suit land. It is true that the mutation of names in revenue record is no evidence of title, though it may be relevant for other purposes. It is also true that a presumption of correctness is attached to entries appearing in the record-of-rights, but such entries are not the foundations of title, but are mere items of evidence. The presumption raised by those entries is not conclusive, but 'prima facie' merely, and while it must prevail where there is no rebutting evidence; it may be repelled by other evidence and circumstances showing those entries arc not correct. The Supreme Court in Shikarchand v. D.J.P. Karini Sabha, , held that Khasra is a record-of-right. Although the record-of-rights is not a document of title, the Court is perfectly entitled to take into consideration the entry in the record-of-rights for coming to the conclusion that certain person is the owner of the land in question. The party relying on presumption of correctness need not prove foundation or basis of correctness. Where the entry in the record of rights shows the suit land in the name of the plaintiff, the onus is on the defendant to prove that the said entry in favour of the plaintiff is not correct. As pointed out supra, the plaintiffs nave produced the record of rights as well as the pahanis to establish their title to and possession of the suit land. In the Commissioner's report Ex.C2, it is stated that the suit land is a patta land and it stands registered in the name of Late Sri B.V. Prakasa Reddy as per the existing Shethwar of 1311 and 1356 Fasli (1901 and 1946) of Thokatta village of Secunderabad Mandal The Commissioner was examined as PW2. He has stated that the suit land is a patta Sand standing in the name of Late B. V. Prakasa Reddy. As against this documentary and oral evidence, there is no iota of rebuttal evidence produced by the defendants to destroy the presumption to be drawn from the record-of-riglits and the pahanis. On the other hand, it has come in the evidence of DW1 that at no point of time any step was taken by the defendants to challenge the correctness of the entries in the record of rights and pahanis of the suit land. It is also admitted by the defendant No.1 in his evidence that on the date of giving evidence, the protected tenant by name Jogaiah was in possession of tile suit land. Therefore, as noted supra, though the presumption of correctness attached to entries appearing in the record of rights and the pahanis is not conclusive, but that presumption should prevail where there is no rebutting evidence. In the instant case, in the absence of any rebutting evidence to destroy the presumption to be drawn from the entries in the record of rights and pahanis of the suit land and also having regard to the oral evidence of PWs and particularly that of PW2, it cannot be said that the findings recorded by the learned Trial Judge that the appellants proved their title to and possession of the suit land is erroneous and not supported by evidence.
PW2 has categorically stated that he took into consideration of the points raised by the defendants in their Work Memo and answered the same as shown in Ex.C3. Dealing with the pillars existing in and around GLR Sy. No.586, PW2 has stated that pillar No. 19 exists in between the boundary of the suit land and Sy No.235 and 248; Pillar No.20 exists in between boundaries of suit land and Sy. No.233 and Pillar No.2 was exists in between Sy No.230 and the suit land and that there are no military pillars in Sy. No,234 (suit land). PW2 has also stated that during the survey of the suit land, he found M/s. K. Voosaiah, B. Satyanarayana, B. Sudershan in possession of the land. PW2 has also stated that the defendants did not produce any relevant records with regard to GLR register or maps to him at the time of execution of the warrant; there is the land of the defendants at the right side of the suit laud and there is a road in between the suit land and the land of the defendants. It has also come in the evidence that throughout the Government was collecting the land revenue in respect of the suit land, and none of the records-of-rights and pahanis marked in the suit reflect the ownership of Government or the defendants at any point of time. It has also come in the evidence that in the Cantonment area also, there are certain private lands. Although the defendants heavily depended upon Ex.B2, the original of the same was not filed and there is absolutely no evidence to show on what basis Ex.B2 was prepared and how the revenue Sy, No.234 is superimposed in GLR Sy. No.586. Therefore, the learned Trial Judge is justified in observing that if really as per Ex.B2, the suit land is forming part of GLR Sy. No.586, nothing prevented the defendants to hand over the original of Ex.B2 and there is absolutely no explanation for not producing original Ex.B2.