HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THE circumstances that give rise to this revision may be briefly be stated thus: Sheo Sahai filed an application under sec. 7 of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, 1949, in the court of the S.D.O. Behror on 22-6-50 against Govinda and six others THE opposite party Nos. 4 to 7 were stated to be the landlord and Nos. 1 to 3, the tenants to whom the landlords, it was said, had delivered the possession of the land after ejecting the applicant. Sheo Sahai alleged in his application that he had been in possession of Khasra Nos. 1969 to 1975 in village Rampura Tehsil Bansur and that on 22-6-53 he was ejected wrongfully. THE opposite party in their written statement pleaded that Sheo Sahai was in possession of one-third of the disputed land only for the last seven years and at the expiry of his term of lease he voluntarily surrendered the land which was leased to opposite parties Nos. 1 to 3 by the landlords. THE trial court after an enquiry into the case dismissed the application on the ground that the applicant had relinquished the holding voluntarily. Sheo Sahai came up in revision before the Board which by its order dated 20-10-51 set aside the order of the trial court and granted reinstatement in favour of Sheo Sahai over the land in dispute. A review petition was also filed before the Board which was also rejected on 4-6-52. A writ petition was presented before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan by Bhagwan Sahai, one of the opposite party. THE Lordships were pleased to set aside the judgment of the Board and to direct that the revision application of Sheo Sahai be reheard and decided afresh in accordance with law. It was observed in the judgment that the Board has not applied its mind to the material placed on the record of the case by the opposite parties relating to the question of voluntary surrender. THE question of Sheo Sahai alone seeking reinstatement and there being others as well in possession was also directed to be examined afresh.
(2.) IN compliance with the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature for Rajas-than, we have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have examined the record as well. The first question to be determined in the case is, as to whether the plea of voluntary surrender set-up by the opposite party has been established in the case or not. A deed purporting to be a deed of relinquishment executed by Sheo Sahai was filed in the case. Its execution has been flatly denied by Sheo Sahai before us. IN this connection, it is important to observe that the opposite party in their written statement dated 28-10-50 made no mention of the fact that any relinquishment deed was never executed by Sheo Sahai or that they had in their possession such relinquishment deed or that there were circumstances justifying their withholding the production of the deed on that date. It is still more significant to observe that when Sheo Sahai applicant was examined in the court on 2-2-5l, not a single question was put to him during the course of cross-examination as regards the alleged execution of this relinquishment deed. It is, clear from the above, therefore, that a reference to the execution of the surrender deed was made for the first time on 10-2-51 and even on his date the original was not produced but only a copy thereof. As laid down in Rule 24 of the rules framed under sec. 8 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure & Jurisdiction)Act,1951, the parties are bound to produce at the first hearing of the suit all the documentary evidence of every description in their possession or power on which the intend to rely. If this has not been done,then no documentary evidence can be received at any subsequent stage of the proceedings unless good cause is shown to the satisfaction of the court for non-production thereof. The court receiving any such evidence is bound to record the reasons for so doing. IN the present case no explanation whatsoever has been offered as to why the relinquishment deed could not be produced at the first hearing. No reasons have been recorded by the court in this respect It is clear that the applicant was practically taken by surprise by the belated production of this document inasmuch as he had no notice whatsoever till he had almost finished his evidence in the case and had thus no opportunity to meet this document. This belated appearance of the document in the case is by itself potent enough to raise reasonable doubts against its veracity, besides exposing it to serious objections on the point of its admission. The scribe Madholal has stated that it was executed in 1949 whereas the date appearing on the document is 30-4-50. Kishorse Singh has stated that this document was executed by the opposite party and handed over to the applicant which is in itself absurd and exposes the ignorance of the witness. It would be difficult to place reliance upon such witnesses. IN the written statement it was pointed out that Ganpat, Sheo Sahai and Ruda had surrendered the land voluntarily. The alleged relinquishment deed is said to have been executed by Sheo Sahai alone. The patta was granted in favour of Sheo Sahai and Ganpat. Kishore Singh and Madho Prasad witnesses of the opposite party have nowhere stated that Ganpat and Ruda had also relinquished the land or had authorised Sheo Sahai to do so on their behalf. Under the circumstances. Sheo Sahai could hardly have any authority to surrender the entire land. However, much need not be said on the point. From a consideration of the evidence and the circumstances we have come to conclusion that the plea of voluntary surrender set-up by the opposite party does not at all stand substantiated.
As regards the other contention regarding eligibility of Sheo Sahai to claim reinstatement over the entire land, it may be observed that the original patta was granted in favour of Sheo Sahai and Ganpat. Rada who is a brother of Sheo Sahai appears to have joined subsequently. However this Ruda desired himself, before the trial court to be joined amongst the applicants and this request of his was allowed. The only question is as to whether in absence of Ganpat being on the record,Sheo Sahai can be reinstated over the entire holding or not Ganpat was never examined by the opposite party nor there is anything on record to suggest that he had any interest adverse to that of Sheo Sahai. This question was examined by the Board in case No.94/Stkar of Smt.2009 (Thakur Madan Singh vs. Lakshmi Narayan decided on 27-10-53). On a consideration of the case law it was held therein that where a tenancy stands jointly in favour of several persons one alone out of them can claim reinstatement unless it be shown that the interests of others are adverse to or not identical with that of the claimant. We would, therefore, allow this revision, set aside the order of the lower court and direct that the applicant shall be reinstated over the land in dispute with immediate effect.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.