Supreme Court Upholds Revenue Records, Rejects Oral Tenancy Claim: Partap Singh vs. Shiv Ram (20 February 2020)

Date of the Judgment: 20 February 2020

Citation: (2020) INSC 157

Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J., Hemant Gupta, J.

Can oral testimony alone be sufficient to overturn the presumption of truth attached to revenue records, especially in cases involving land ownership and tenancy disputes? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a civil appeal, focusing on the evidentiary value of revenue records versus oral testimony. The case involved a dispute over land where the plaintiff claimed ownership and the defendant asserted a tenancy based on oral evidence, challenging the entries in the revenue records. The bench consisted of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta, with the judgment authored by Justice Hemant Gupta.

Case Background

The dispute began when Plaintiff No. 1 claimed ownership of 53 Bighas 11 Biswas of land, and Plaintiff No. 2 claimed ownership of 12 Bighas 16 Biswas. Plaintiff No. 1 asserted that the defendant was initially appointed as a manager to oversee the property, with the responsibility of providing accounts twice a year after each harvest. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant mismanaged the property, leading to the termination of his agency and a demand for the handover of the properties. Consequently, the plaintiffs filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction, a mandatory injunction, and possession of 8 plots of land measuring 13 Bighas 14 Biswas.

The defendant, however, contended that he was a tenant, not a manager, and that the suit should be tried by a Revenue Court. He claimed to be paying one-half Galla batai (a share of the produce) for 13 Bighas 2 Biswas of land for the past 12 years. The defendant admitted the plaintiff’s ownership but asserted his tenancy.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The trial court framed 12 issues, with Issue No. 3 being crucial: “Whether there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties as alleged. If so, regarding what property?” The trial court, after considering the evidence, concluded that while the plaintiffs were the owners of the land, the defendant was in possession of 13 Bighas 2 Biswas as a tenant. The court granted a prohibitory injunction except for the land held by the defendant as a tenant.

The first appellate court reversed this decision on 26th May 1997. The High Court, in the second appeal, remanded the matter back to the first appellate court to determine if the defendant was a tenant or a trespasser and whether the plaintiffs were entitled to possession. After the remand, the Additional District Judge allowed the appeal, noting the lack of evidence regarding the creation and terms of the tenancy. However, the High Court in second appeal allowed the defendant’s appeal and dismissed the suit.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court examined the following provisions of the Himachal Land Revenue Act, 1954:

• Section 32: “Record-of-rights and documents included therein.” This section specifies that the record-of-rights for an estate should include details of landowners, tenants, and the nature of their interests. It also includes the rent and land revenue due.
• Section 34: “Periodical Record.” This section mandates the preparation of an annual record of rights, which includes the statements mentioned in Section 32(2)(a).
• Section 45: “Presumption in favour of entries in records-of-rights and [periodical] records.” This section states that entries in the record-of-rights are presumed to be true unless proven otherwise. It also includes a proviso for entries made between April 1, 1948, and April 1, 1956, showing self-cultivation, which are not presumed to be true.
• Section 46: “Suit for declaratory decree by persons aggrieved by an entry in a record.” This section allows individuals aggrieved by an entry in the record-of-rights to file a suit for a declaration of their rights.

The Court also considered the following provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872:

• Section 35: “Relevancy of entry in public record or an electronic record made in performance of duty.” This section makes entries in public records relevant facts if made by a public servant in the discharge of their duty.
• Section 109: “Burden of Proof as to relationship in the cases of partners, landlord and tenant, principal and agent.” This section states that when a relationship like landlord and tenant is shown to exist, the burden of proving that the relationship has ceased is on the person who asserts it.

Arguments

Plaintiffs’ Submissions:

• The plaintiffs argued that the defendant was initially appointed as a manager of their property and was responsible for managing the land and providing accounts.
• They contended that the defendant’s alleged tenancy was a false claim, and the revenue records clearly indicated their ownership and possession of the land.
• The plaintiffs relied on the revenue records (Jamabandi and Khasra Girdawari) as primary evidence of their ownership.
• The plaintiffs argued that the defendant failed to produce any documentary evidence to prove his tenancy, such as a lease agreement or rent receipts.

Defendant’s Submissions:

• The defendant claimed that he was a tenant of the land, paying a share of the produce (Galla batai) to the plaintiffs.
• He argued that the oral testimony of witnesses supported his claim of tenancy and rebutted the presumption of truth attached to the revenue records.
• The defendant relied on the statements of witnesses who claimed to have seen him cultivating the land and paying rent.
• The defendant also presented the revenue officer’s record of proceedings relating to the correction of revenue entries, which recommended the correction of the revenue record.

The innovativeness of the argument by the defendant was that he tried to rebut the presumption of truth of the revenue records by relying on oral evidence and the revenue officer’s record of proceedings relating to correction of revenue entries.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following key issue:

1. Whether the High Court was correct in allowing the defendant’s appeal relying upon oral evidence to rebut the statutory presumption of truth attached to the revenue record.

The sub-issue that the court dealt with was whether the defendant had successfully rebutted the presumption of truth attached to the revenue record by producing reliable, trustworthy, and cogent documentary evidence to prove the relationship of a tenant.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

• Harish Chander and Others v. Ghisa Ram and Another [ (1981) 1 SCC 431 ] – The Supreme Court of India held that entries in the Jamabandi carry a presumption of truth, which is rebuttable. It also stated that once a landlord-tenant relationship is established, the burden of proving its cessation is on the party asserting it.
• Vishwa Vijai Bharti v. Fakhrul Hasan & Ors. [ (1976) 3 SCC 642 ] – The Supreme Court of India held that entries in the revenue record should generally be accepted at their face value and courts should not conduct appellate inquiries into their correctness. However, this presumption applies only to genuine, not forged or fraudulent, entries.
• Guru Amarjit Singh v. Rattan Chand and Others [ AIR 1994 SC 227 ] – The Supreme Court of India examined a dispute of landlord-tenant relationship and held that non-production of rent receipts indicated the absence of a landlord-tenant relationship, even if a lease deed was present.
• Sodhi Transport Co. and Others v. State of U.P. and Others [ (1986) 2 SCC 486 ] – The Supreme Court of India discussed the concept of presumption and held that a presumption is not evidence itself but makes a prima facie case. It also clarified that a rebuttable presumption only indicates the party on whom the burden of proof lies.
• Kumar Exports v. Sharma Carpets [ (2009) 2 SCC 513 ] – The Supreme Court of India examined the presumption of fact in proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and held that a bare denial of consideration or debt is insufficient to shift the burden of proof to the complainant.
• Bhimappa Channappa Kapali (Dead) by LRS. v. Bhimappa Satyappa Kamagouda (Dead) by LRS. and Others [ (2012) 13 SCC 759 ] – The Supreme Court of India held that the presumption of truth attached to the revenue record can be rebutted if such entry was made fraudulently or surreptitiously or where such entry has not been made by following the prescribed procedure.

Legal Provisions:

• Section 32 of the Himachal Land Revenue Act, 1954 – Specifies the content of record-of-rights, including details of landowners and tenants.
• Section 34 of the Himachal Land Revenue Act, 1954 – Mandates the preparation of an annual record of rights.
• Section 45 of the Himachal Land Revenue Act, 1954 – Provides the presumption of truth to entries in the record-of-rights.
• Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Makes entries in public records relevant facts.
• Section 109 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Specifies the burden of proof in cases of relationships like landlord and tenant.

The following table shows how the authorities were used by the court:

Judgment

The following table shows how each submission made by the parties was treated by the Court:

The following table shows how each authority was viewed by the Court:

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle that revenue records, specifically the Jamabandi and Khasra Girdawari, carry a statutory presumption of truth. This presumption is not absolute but can only be rebutted by strong documentary evidence or proof of fraud or procedural irregularity in the making of the entries. The Court emphasized that oral testimony alone is insufficient to overturn such a presumption. The Court also highlighted that the burden of proving a landlord-tenant relationship lies on the person asserting it, as per Section 109 of the Evidence Act. The Court also relied on the principle that “witnesses may lie, but documents do not.”

The Court also considered the following points:

• The defendant failed to produce any documentary evidence to support his claim of tenancy, such as a lease agreement or rent receipts.
• The oral testimony provided by the defendant’s witnesses was deemed unreliable and insufficient to rebut the presumption of truth attached to the revenue records.
• The Court noted that the proceedings before the Revenue Officer for correction of revenue records are summary in nature and the statements recorded are not per se admissible in evidence.

The following table shows the ranking of sentiment analysis of reasons given by the Supreme Court:

The following table shows the ratio of fact:law percentage that influenced the court to decide:

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the alternative interpretation that the defendant was indeed a tenant based on oral evidence, but rejected it because it did not meet the required standard to rebut the statutory presumption of truth attached to the revenue records. The Court emphasized the need for reliable documentary evidence to overturn the revenue records.

The Court’s decision was that the High Court erred in law by relying on oral evidence to rebut the statutory presumption of truth attached to the revenue record. The Court emphasized that the presumption of truth can only be rebutted by reliable, trustworthy, and cogent documentary evidence. The Court also held that the burden of proof was on the defendant to prove the relationship of a tenant, which he failed to do.

The reasons for the decision can be summarized as follows:

• The revenue records (Jamabandi and Khasra Girdawari) carry a statutory presumption of truth.
• The defendant failed to produce any documentary evidence to support his claim of tenancy.
• Oral testimony alone is insufficient to rebut the presumption of truth attached to the revenue records.
• The burden of proving the relationship of a tenant is on the person asserting it.

The Supreme Court quoted the following from the judgment:

• “The witnesses may lie but the documents do not, is a golden rule.”
• “The presumption of truth attached to the revenue record can be rebutted only on the basis of evidence of impeccable integrity and reliability.”
• “The burden is on the person who asserts such a relationship as per Section 109 of the Evidence Act.”

There were no minority opinions in this case. The judgment was delivered by a bench of two judges, with Justice Hemant Gupta authoring the opinion.

The decision reinforces the importance of revenue records in land disputes and sets a high bar for rebutting their presumption of truth. The Court’s legal interpretation emphasizes the need for documentary evidence over oral testimony in such cases. The application of this interpretation to the facts of the case led to the upholding of the revenue records and the rejection of the defendant’s tenancy claim.

The potential implications for future cases are that courts will likely place more emphasis on documentary evidence and the statutory presumption of truth of revenue records. This decision could also lead to a more cautious approach by lower courts when considering oral testimony against revenue records.

No new doctrines or legal principles were introduced in this case. The Court reiterated existing principles of law related to the presumption of truth of revenue records and the burden of proof in landlord-tenant relationships. The Court’s reasoning was based on a consistent application of these well-established principles.

Key Takeaways

• Revenue records, such as Jamabandi and Khasra Girdawari, carry a strong statutory presumption of truth in land disputes.
• Oral testimony alone is generally insufficient to rebut the presumption of truth attached to revenue records.
• The burden of proving a landlord-tenant relationship lies on the person asserting it, and this must be supported by reliable documentary evidence.
• Courts will prioritize documentary evidence over oral testimony when deciding land disputes involving revenue records.
• The decision emphasizes the importance of maintaining accurate and reliable revenue records.

The potential future impact of this judgment is that it will likely lead to a more cautious approach by lower courts when considering oral testimony against revenue records. It also reinforces the importance of maintaining accurate and reliable revenue records to avoid disputes.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court and affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court. The appeal was allowed.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There were no specific amendments discussed in this judgment.

Development of Law

This judgment reinforces the existing legal principles regarding the presumption of truth attached to revenue records and the burden of proof in landlord-tenant relationships. It clarifies that while this presumption is rebuttable, it requires strong documentary evidence, not merely oral testimony. The judgment does not introduce any new doctrines but rather reaffirms the importance of documentary evidence in land disputes and the statutory weight given to revenue records.