Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (2.12 seconds)Section 4 in The Punjab Tenancy Rules [Entire Act]
Gangabai Baswantrao Desai vs Fakirgowda Somappagowda Desai on 3 December, 1929
However, both the Counsel before me are unable to say as to at what stage the said proceedings are pending. However, the order-sheet, dated 17-8-1984 on this file indicates that the said civil proceedings have been stayed by this Court by the abovesaid order. However, nothing turns on the same as it was just pointed out by Shri Shinde to show that as to why the respondent-landlord did not immediately proceed against the petitioner. The learned Counsel Shri Korhalkar further tried to rely on two judgments, and the other one reported in 32 Bom.L.R. 368, in the case of Vishwa Vijay Bharati v. Fakhrul Hassan and others, and Gangabai Baswantrao Desai v. Fakirgowda Somappagowda Desai, respectively, in support of his contention that the entries in the revenue record have a presumptive value and are presumed to be correct unless rebutted. There cannot be two opinions about this proposition. However, the question is when the revenue record does not indicate the name of the petitioner as a tenant during the relevant period and when the name of the petitioner is indicated nowhere, then exactly what the petitioner is claiming and could in such a case, the revenue entries be held to be true and correct. Statement made by the landlord-respondent, in his deposition, 'that the tenant in connivance with the revenue officers got recorded his name in the revenue record', was the sentence which instigated the learned Counsel for the petitioner to argue this point that the entries are true and correct unless rebutted. The question to be considered is that, is the name of the petitioner shown as a tenant constantly except for the period 1961-62 to 1966-67, though the name of the petitioner is shown in the revenue record not as a tenant but in other capacity, could it be said that was the conclusive proof for reaching to the conclusion that the petitioner was a tenant on the field in question. As observed above, there could not be two opinions as regards the proposition of the presumptive value of the revenue record. However, in the instant petition the facts are otherwise and hence the question of holding the petitioner as tenant on the field in question simply on the basis of those documents for the years 1961-62 to 1966-67, cannot be accepted.
Vishwa Vijai Bharti vs Fakhrul Hasan & Ors on 4 May, 1976
However, both the Counsel before me are unable to say as to at what stage the said proceedings are pending. However, the order-sheet, dated 17-8-1984 on this file indicates that the said civil proceedings have been stayed by this Court by the abovesaid order. However, nothing turns on the same as it was just pointed out by Shri Shinde to show that as to why the respondent-landlord did not immediately proceed against the petitioner. The learned Counsel Shri Korhalkar further tried to rely on two judgments, and the other one reported in 32 Bom.L.R. 368, in the case of Vishwa Vijay Bharati v. Fakhrul Hassan and others, and Gangabai Baswantrao Desai v. Fakirgowda Somappagowda Desai, respectively, in support of his contention that the entries in the revenue record have a presumptive value and are presumed to be correct unless rebutted. There cannot be two opinions about this proposition. However, the question is when the revenue record does not indicate the name of the petitioner as a tenant during the relevant period and when the name of the petitioner is indicated nowhere, then exactly what the petitioner is claiming and could in such a case, the revenue entries be held to be true and correct. Statement made by the landlord-respondent, in his deposition, 'that the tenant in connivance with the revenue officers got recorded his name in the revenue record', was the sentence which instigated the learned Counsel for the petitioner to argue this point that the entries are true and correct unless rebutted. The question to be considered is that, is the name of the petitioner shown as a tenant constantly except for the period 1961-62 to 1966-67, though the name of the petitioner is shown in the revenue record not as a tenant but in other capacity, could it be said that was the conclusive proof for reaching to the conclusion that the petitioner was a tenant on the field in question. As observed above, there could not be two opinions as regards the proposition of the presumptive value of the revenue record. However, in the instant petition the facts are otherwise and hence the question of holding the petitioner as tenant on the field in question simply on the basis of those documents for the years 1961-62 to 1966-67, cannot be accepted.
Section 2 in The Punjab Tenancy Rules [Entire Act]
1