claim, does not exist in the Survey Record. The Deputy Collector also held that the Joint Mamlatdar did not even consider the resolution passed by the respondent no.1 in the year 1946. The Deputy Collector was also of the view that the reliance placed by the Joint Mamlatdar on the rent receipts was misfounded, as the rent receipts do not mention any survey numbers. The Deputy Collector observed that the Joint Mamlatdar, being a Revenue Court, has to place reliance on the revenue record i.e. the Survey Record which record inter alia shows that the property under Survey No.13/4 admeasures 2400 square metres out of which 400 square metres' area was under coconut cultivation and an area of 2000 square metres was fallow. The Deputy Collector also adverted to the Gat Book which document shows that no cultivation is possible on account of the fact that it shows construction. The Deputy Collector, therefore, held that in the present case, there is no cultivation and insofar as the rest of the fruit bearing trees are concerned, they are spread out over an area and would, therefore, not qualify as garden and since the respondent no.1 has not accurately described the location of the trees, produce of the trees, and cultivation of the same, the Trial Court has erred in allowing the said application without taking into consideration the aforesaid aspects. As indicated above, the Deputy Collector
