HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Click here to view full judgement.
C C.CHOWDHRY,J. -
(1.) THIS is an application in revision by the defendant Attra against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge of Mahasu and Sirmur, dated 1 3 1952, affirming the judgment and decree of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Nahan, dated 10 12 1951, whereby the suit of the plaintiff respondent Atma Ram for possession of a certain cultivatory holding was decreed.
(2.) THE defendant petitioner was at one time occupancy tenant of the land in suit. The case of the plaintiff respondent was that Attra had relinquished his occupancy rights in the land in 1993 B., that thereafter the proprietor Jagat Bahadur had let out the land to the plaintiff, and that on 11 7 1949 Attra had wrongfully dispossessed the plaintiff. The present suit was filed on 16 8 1950.
It was held by the trial Court that Attra had in fact relinquished his occupancy rights as alleged by the plaintiff, and that the latter had been let into possession of the land by the proprietor. That Court, therefore, granted the plaintiff respondent a decree for possession of the land. The defendant Attra went up in appeal to the District Judge, but his appeal was dismissed, the District Judge agreeing with the findings of the trial Court. The defendant has now come up in revision to this Court.
(3.) THE plaintiff respondent Atma Ram was not represented by any counsel, and I have therefore had the benefit of the arguments of the learned counsel for the defendant petitioner only. He impugned the judgment of the lower appellate Court on merits, his contention being that the petitioner continues to be recorded as an occupancy tenant of the land in question, and that the presumption of correctness that attaches to that record under Section 44, Punjab Land Revenue Act had not been rebutted in this case because the deed of relinquishment Ex. P. 1 relied upon by the Courts below was not admissible in evidence as the document was compulsorily registrable under Section 17 (b), Registration Act. He also argued that one Bhau, to whom the proprietor is said to have leased out the land after the alleged relinquishment by the petitioner, had not been produced, and that the lower appellate Court had relied upon a ruling 'Brojonath v. Maheswar', 28 Cal L J 220 which was not applicable to the facts of the case.
Even if it be conceded that all these contentions put forward by the learned counsel for the defendant petitioner be correct, that would not be a good ground for interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The simple reason for this view is that the Court below had the jurisdiction to decide the case erroneously. The learned counsel for the petitioner cited a ruling of this Court reported as '
Beg Ram v. Charan Das', AIR
1951 H P 16. The present is however not a case where the Court below has omitted to consider a certain piece of evidence, but a case where it is said to have come to a wrong conclusion with regard to the admissibility of a certain document. The Court below did not omit to consider that document; on the contrary, it did consider that document although it arrived at a conclusion which the learned counsel for the petitioner challenges as erroneous. That ruling has therefore no application. I hold that no interference in revision is called for on the merits of the case.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.