Dismissed

Mangal Das and Ors. v. B.O.R.and Ors.

Rajasthan HC1 Dec 2022SAW/676/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a special writ appeal regarding disputed agricultural land, the High Court of Rajasthan held that the statutory presumption of truth attached to revenue records stands unless rebutted by impeccable evidence. The Court found oral testimony and rent receipts insufficient to override the revenue record showing sole khatedari in one defendant's name, dismissing the appeal.

What the court decided

AI extract

Mangal Das and Ors. Vs B.O.R.and Ors. — Partition | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 676/2001

¶3

LR’s of Mangal Das

¶4

1/1 Smt. Bhanwari Bai W/o late Shri Managal Das

¶5

1/3 Bindu D/o late Shri Managal Das

¶6

1/4 Harish Kumar S/o late Shri Managal Das

¶7

1/5 Govind S/o late Shri Managal Das

¶8

1/6 Deepak S/o late Shri Managal Das

¶9

Appellant No.1/4 to1/6 are minors through legal guardian their mother Smt. Bhanwari Bai W/o late Shri Managal Das.

¶10

All by caste Vaishnav, Resident of Village Kishanpura, Tehsil Desuri, District Pali (Raj.).

¶11

Shankar Das S/o late Shri Ghessu Das

¶12

Prabhu Das S/o late Shri Ghessu Das

¶13

Babu Das S/o late Shri Ghessu Das

¶14

Kan Das S/o late Shri Ghessu Das

¶15

Shyam Das S/o late Shri Ghessu Das

¶16

Madan S/o late Shri Ghessu Das

¶17

Smt. Bhanwari D/o Shri Ghessu Das

¶18

Sumitra D/o Shri Ghessu Das

¶19

All by caste Vaishnav, Resident of Village Kishanpura, Tehsil Desuri, District Pali (Raj.).

¶20

----Appellants-

¶21

Versus

¶22

The Board of Revenue for Rajasthan at Ajmer.

¶23

The Revenue Appellate Authority, (II- Jodhpur), now at Pali.

¶24

The Assistant Collector, Tehsil Desuri, District Pali.

¶25

Mangi Das S/o Shri Birad Das.

¶26

(2 of 8)

¶27

[SAW-676/2001]

¶28

LR of Shri Sesu Das S/o Shri Ganesh Das

¶29

5/1 LR’s of Hira Das S/o Shri Sesu Das

¶30

(a) Smt. Bhanwari Widow Shri Hira Das

¶31

(b) Kumari Poonam D/o Shri Hira Das

¶32

¶33

(d) Shri Deepak S/o Shri Hira Das

¶34

(e) Shri Prakash S/o Shri Hira Das

¶35

All by caste Vaishnav, Resident of Kishanpura, Tehsil Desuri, District Pali.

¶36

(5/2) Chhagan Das S/o Shri Sesu Das

¶37

(5/3) Vijau Das S/o Shri Sesu Das

¶38

(5/4) Hari Krishan S/o Shri Sesu Das

¶39

All by caste Vaishnav, Resident of Kishanpura, Tehsil Desuri, District Pali.

¶40

Roop Das S/o Shri Ganesh Das

¶41

Bhola Das S/o Shri Ganesh Das

¶42

Amri Das S/o Shri Gulab Das

¶43

Hand Das S/o Shri Gulab Das

¶44

Ratan Das S/o Shri Gulab Das

¶45

Dakhu Bai Widow of Shri Gulab Das

¶46

Champa, Daughter of Shri Gulab Das

¶47

Smt. Jatno Wife of Shri Hira Das

¶48

Smt. Sukhli Wife of Mangal Das and D/o Ganesh Das

¶49

Dhan Das S/o Shri Ganesh Das

¶50

All by caste Vaishnav Residents of Village Kishanpura, Tehsil Desuri, District Pali.

¶51

Tehsildar, Desuri

¶52

----Respondents

¶53

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. Jitendra Chopra
For Respondent(s)	: -

¶54

(3 of 8)

¶55

[SAW-676/2001]

¶56

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

JUDGMENT

PRONOUNCED ON

: 01/12/2022

RESERVED ON : 13/10/2022

¶61

BY THE COURT: (PER HON'BLE MATHUR, J.)

¶62

The present special appeal is directed against order dated 06.07.2001 passed by learned Single Bench in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2286/2001 (Mangal Das & Ors. Vs. Board of Revenue & Ors.), whereby the writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution by the appellants with the prayer to set aside the judgment of Revenue Appellate Authority-II, Jodhpur as affirmed by Board of Revenue, Ajmer, vide judgment dated 18.01.2001, by restoring judgment dated 25.11.1991, passed by Assistant Collector, Desuri declaring the property in dispute to be a Joint Hindu family ancestral property, was dismissed.

¶63

Briefly stated facts of the case are that the appellants filed a suit under Sections 53, 88, 188 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act before Assistant Collector, Desuri stating inter alia, that Khasra No.97 admeasuring 19 bighas and 16 biswas, Khasra No.98 ad-measuring 5 bighas 1 biswa and Khasra No.171 ad-measuring 14 bighas and 4 biswas, measuring a total of 39 bighas and 1 biswa, situated at Chak No.1, village Nadol, belongs to the Joint Family of Late Shri Birad Das and his three sons namely, Ganesh Das, Gheesu Das, and Mangi Das. In the suit, it was further stated that the land in dispute had been wrongly recorded in the revenue records in the name of Ganesh Das, though it was a Joint Hindu Family property

¶64

(4 of 8)

¶65

[SAW-676/2001]

¶66

in which all three brothers were having 1/3rd shares. It was thus prayed that declaration for necessary corrections be made in revenue record to the effect that all the legal heirs of late Shri Birad Das are Khatedars of the disputed land.

¶67

In the reply, it was pleaded that Ganesh Das was the sole khatedar of the land in dispute and therefore in the revenue records, the land had been rightly recorded in his name. It was further stated that Shri Ganesh Das lived separately from his father late Shri Birad Das and the land in dispute was acquired by him in personal capacity through his own resources.

¶68

In the rejoinder, it was stated on behalf of the appellantsplaintiffs that Ganesh Das, being the eldest son of late Shri Birad Das was the Karta of the family and in that capacity only, the land was recorded in his name. Further, it was stated that ‘Bigori’ (Rent of the disputed land) used to be deposited by Ganesh Das on behalf of the joint Hindu Family and other brothers, namely Gheesu Das and Mangi Das contributed and paid their shares of the rent to Ganesh Das. To substantiate this, certain rent receipts signed by Ganesh Das pertaining to Samwat years 2011-2013 were produced with the suit.

¶69

The learned Assistant Collector, Desuri vide judgment dated 25.11.1991 decreed the suit in favour of the appellant-plaintiffs holding that the disputed land was a joint Hindu Family property. The learned Assistant Collector, Desuri also held that Ganesh Das used to recover rent from Gheesu Das (plaintiff), which clearly shows that plaintiff had 1/3rd share in the disputed property and contribution of 1/3 amount of ‘Bigori’ (Rent) was made towards the same. Learned Assistant Collector, relying on the oral

¶70

(5 of 8)

¶71

[SAW-676/2001]

¶72

testimonies of the witnesses concluded that appellant-plaintiffs have 1/3rd share in the disputed land, entitling them to a declaration of Khatedari right, as prayed for in the suit.

¶73

Aggrieved by the judgment dated 25.11.1991 of Assistant Collector, Desuri the respondent-defendants challenged the same before Revenue Appellate Authority II, Jodhpur. The Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur vide its judgment dated 24.08.1993 was pleased to accept the appeal filed under Section 223 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act against the judgment and decree dated 25.11.1991 passed by the Assistant Collector, Desuri. The Revenue Appellate Authority held that since the land in dispute had been entered in the name of Ganesh Das in the revenue records, the same cannot be declared as an ancestral property only on the basis of oral evidence. A decree for declaration in partition cannot be granted in favour of the respondents-plaintiffs.

¶74

Being dissatisfied with the judgment dated 24.08.1993, an appeal was preferred by the appellant-plaintiffs before Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer which was rejected vide judgement dated 18.01.2001 affirming the judgment dated 24.08.1993 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority II, Jodhpur.

¶75

The appellant-plaintiff assailed the validity and legality of judgment dated 24.08.1993 passed by Revenue Appellate Authority II, Jodhpur and judgment dated 18.01.2001 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer before learned Single Bench of this Court by way of filing writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The learned Single Bench after scrutinising the record, reached to the conclusion that the evidence on record, particularly documentary evidence, does not

¶76

(6 of 8)

¶77

[SAW-676/2001]

¶78

establish that the disputed land was ever recorded in the name of ancestor of the parties but was only recorded in the name of Ganesh Das. Learned Single Bench further observed that there was no other evidence available to establish that the land was ancestral property of the parties which was liable to be partitioned amongst them. While reaching to this conclusion, learned Single Bench upheld the findings recorded by Board of Revenue, Ajmer and Revenue Appellate Authority-II, Jodhpur in their judgments vide order dated 06.07.2001 and dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved by the order dated 06.07.2001, present special appeal (writ) has been filed.

¶79

Learned counsel Mr. Jitendra Chopra, representing the appellant, vehemently and fervently contended that learned Single Bench and Revenue Authorities failed to consider that the judgment dated 25.11.1991 passed by Assistant Collector, Desuri is a well reasoned order, based on thorough appreciation of oral and documentary evidence presented before it. Learned counsel submitted that it was clearly established from record that Ganesh Das recovered the share of the Bigori (rent) from his brother Gheesu Das and these receipts were sufficient to establish that the land in dispute was jointly owned by all three brothers and the rent was also paid jointly. Learned counsel further submitted that Gulab Das S/o Shri Ganesh Das filed an application for compromise, duly verified by Assistant Collector, Desuri dated 19.08.1989 stating therein that the disputed land was the joint family property of Ganesh Das, Gheesu Das and Mangi Das having equal share and he had no objection, if a decree of partition was passed. Lastly, it was submitted that disputed land was entered in

¶80

(7 of 8)

¶81

[SAW-676/2001]

¶82

the name of Ganesh Das in the revenue records only because he was elder brother and Karta of the joint Hindu Family. Learned counsel urged that this intra court appeal may be accepted and the judgment and decree dated 25.11.1991 passed by the Assistant Collector, Desuri be restored.

¶83

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the material available on record.

¶84

Indubitably, as per the revenue record; Shri Ganesh Das was the sole khatedar of the land in dispute, Section 140 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 in unambiguous terms provided that all entries made in the record of rights shall be presumed to be true until the contrary is proved. It is not the case of the appellants that entries of revenue records in the name of Shri Ganesh Das were made fraudulently or surreptitiously. Certain receipts showing contribution of other two brothers towards the rent of the land for Samvat years 2011-2013 are not sufficient to conclude that the appellant-plaintiffs were entitled to 1/3rd share in the land or the nature of the property was ancestral/joint Hindu Family property. The receipts only establish by whom the rent was deposited and can by no stretch of imagination be said to convey any status or ownership over the property in dispute. The compromise dated 19.08.1989 between Gulab Das S/o Ganesh Das and the appellants has no bearing on the legal rights of the other respondent-defendants.

¶85

The burden of proving joint ownership over disputed property was totally on the appellant-plaintiffs. Such burden cannot be discharged only by way of oral evidence. It is settled law that the witnesses may lie but the documents do not. The

¶86

(8 of 8) [SAW-676/2001]

¶87

presumption of truth attached to the revenue record could have been rebutted only on the basis of evidence of impeccable integrity and reliability. Oral evidence can always be adduced contrary to the revenue record but such oral testimony will not be sufficient to hold that the statutory presumption stands rebutted.

¶88

In view of the aforesaid discussion, the concurrent findings of fact, so recorded by Revenue Appellate Authority-II, Jodhpur and Board of Revenue, Ajmer vide judgments dated 24.08.1993 and 18.01.2001 respectively, as affirmed by learned Single Bench vide order dated 06.07.2001, do not suffer from any infirmity, perversity or illegality warranting interference in this intra court appeal, which fails and is dismissed as such.

¶89

No order as to costs.

¶90

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J

¶91

(SANDEEP MEHTA),J

¶92

Ravi Kh.

Mangal Das and Ors. v. B.O.R.and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Mangal Das and Ors. v. B.O.R.and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dhanna @ Dhanraj Vs State of Rajasthan

Kapil Davadi Vs Monika Divadi

Bhagwat Singh @ Bhagwan Singh Vs Khushboo Kanwar @ Manju Kanwar

State and Ors. Vs Smt. Savitri Kumari

State and Ors. Vs Smt. Suman Rani

Amarchand Vs State of Rajasthan