APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE WITH REGARD TO THE REVENUE RECORDS

Revenue documents are the documents maintaining by the revenue authority either based on the information as to the possession of the property given either by the person in possession of the property, sub-registrar, court, or based on the enquiry by the revenue officer. The following revenue records are maintaining by the revenue authority;

1.           Records of Rights

2.          Records of Rights and Tenancy Certificate;    

Revenue documents are not substitution for the title deeds. It is only for the purpose of collection of land revenue.

Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act read as follows.

133. Presumption regarding entries in the records.—An entry in the Record of Rights and a certified entry in the Register of Mutations or in the patta book shall be presumed to be true until the contrary is proved or a new entry is lawfully substituted therefor.

The entries in the revenue records, particularly, the mutation, do not in law confer title on any one. There can be no quarrel on this proposition of law. But these entries are more than sufficient to show now the revenue authorities had in exercise of their public duties, recorded the fact that was available and how the properties in question were being enjoyed and by whom. The entry in the revenue records can be considered to ascertain the mode of acquisition of ownership of the person on the land and his possession on the property.  When entry found in the revenue records, but, not in actual possession of the property, the Plaintiff can not take advantage of the same. The entries in the RTC and mutation are rebuttable presumptions. When the entry by the public officer during his discharge of official duty, the presumption is that the entries are true and correct. The Defendant shall rebut the said presumption.

It is also well settled that the entries in the record of rights only raise a presumption that the person whose name is entered in the record of rights is in possession of the suit lands but the same can be rebutted by adduction of evidence-documentary or oral on record. Held by Division Bench of Supreme Court. (2008-MPJR-2-300 Mahant Ram Khilawan Das V/s State of M P).

Where there are conflicts as to two sets of entries, it is the later entry which must prevail. Where new entry is substituted for an old one it is the new entry which will take the place of the old one and will be entitled to the presumption of correctness until and unless it is established to be wrong or substituted by another entry (AIR 1963 SC 361 Raja Durga Singh of Solon V/s Tholu).

If there is entry of the name of the others for intervene period, it can not be considered as stray entry. The factum of partition recorded in the mutation or RTC, it is a good evidence of partition. If survey maps, map index and Hadbundi papers prepared after due enquiry, can be relied. If the revenue documents produced in the name of the person with the entry of the sale deed without producing the sale deed before the court, no presumption as to execution of the sale deed. 

The certified copies of the revenue records are the secondary evidence. The revenue records maintained in the officer of the revenue department are the primary evidences. The production of certified copies of the revenue documents are permissible under law.

In a decision reported in AIR 2008 SC 901 Gurunath Manohar Pavaskar Vs Nagesh Siddappa Navalgund, the Supreme Court held that “A revenue record is not a document of title. It merely raises a presumption in regard to possession. Presumption of possession and/or continuity thereof both forward and backward can also be raised under section 110 of the Indian Evidence Act”.

In a decision reported in 1976 (3) SCC 642 in the case of Vishwa Vijay Bharati Vs Fakhrul Hassan, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “it is true that the entries in the revenue record ought, generally, to be accepted at their face value and courts should not embark upon an appellate inquiry into their correctness. But the presumption of correctness can apply only to genuine, not forged or fraudulent, entries. The distinction may be fine but it is real. The distinction is that one cannot challenge the correctness of what the entry in the revenue record states but the entry is open to the attack that it was made fraudulently or surreptitiously. Fraud and forgery rob a document of all its legal effect and cannot found a claim to possessory title”.

In the decision reported in 1977 (2) KantLJ 126 in the case of Srikante Gowda Vs Land Reforms Tribunal, Thirthahalli, the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka held that “there is a statutory presumption that an entry in the Record of Rights is true until the contrary is proved or a new entry is lawfully substituted therefor. The burden of proving that the entry in the Record of Rights is not true is on the party alleging that such entry is not true”.

In the decision reported in 1978 KantLJ 119 in the case of Laxmi Shedthi Vs Udupi Taluk Land Tribunal, the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka held that “Sec.133 of the Land Revenue Act states that an entry in the Record of Rights shall be presumed to be true until the contrary is proved or a new entry is lawfully substituted therefor. The burden was clearly on the second respondent to show that the legal presumption arising under Sec. 133 of the Land Revenue Act should not be drawn”.

In the decision reported in ILR 1985 Kar 2121 in the case of State of Karnataka Vs Annegowda, the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka held that “Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 provides that an entry in the Record of Rights and an entry in the Register of Mutations, shall be presumed to be true until the contrary is proved or a new entry is lawfully substituted thereof. When the defendants have not produced any evidence to doubt the correctness of the said entries in the Record of Rights, the Court has to raise a presumption about its correctness and the mere allegations that they arc not genuine are not sufficient to rebut that presumption”.

In the decision reported in 2007 (11) SCC 736 between Narain Prasad Aggarwal (Dead) by LRs. V/s State of M.P. the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “Record of right is not a document of title. Entries made therein in terms of Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act although are admissible as a relevant piece of evidence and although the same may also carry a presumption of correctness, but it is beyond any doubt or dispute that such a presumption is rebuttable”.

In a decision reported in 2007 (6) SCC 186 in the case of Suraj Bhan V/s Financial Commissioner, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “It is well settled that an entry in Revenue Records does not confer title on a person whose name appears in Record of Rights. It is settled law that entries in the Revenue Records or Jamabandi have only 'fiscal purpose' i.e. payment of land-revenue, and no ownership is conferred on the basis of such entries. So far as title to the property is concerned, it can only be decided by a competent Civil Court (vide Jattu Ram v. Hakam Singh and Ors.)”.

The electricity bills, phone bills, postal letters or tax paid receipts are not document of proof of the possession. These documents can be considered along with other documents showing his possession.

  

Evidentiary value of the certified copy of the revenue records - “Under section 79 of the Indian Evidence Act a court is bound to draw the presumption that a certified copy of a document is genuine and also that the officer signed it in the official character which he claimed in the said document. But such a presumption is permissible only if the, certified copy is substantially in the form and purported to be executed in the manner provided by law in that behalf. If so, it follows that the court is not bound to draw the presumption in regard to its genuineness”. (AIR 1959 SC 960 – Bhinka V/s Charan Singh)

Sources: Judicial Exam/Acadamy Notes