HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THIS is a revision application under sec. 10(2) of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, 1949, against an order of the S.D.O. Bhinmal granting protection to the opposite party under sec. 7 of the Ordinance.
(2.) AS the opposite party did not put in appearance despite notice, the case was heard ex parte. The lower court's judgment has been assailed before us mainly on the ground that the certified copies of khasra kunt produced by the applicants in the case ought to have been relied upon and that the oral evidence led on their behalf was much more convincing than that of the opposite party yet the lower court refused to attach any credence to it.
The opposite party, Raga and Haja, claimed re-instatement over the land in disputed filed known as Padarwala with the allegations that they had been cultivating the same since a number of years and that the applicants wrongfully dispossessed them within months of the presentation of the application. The applicants resisted the claim on the ground that the opposite party had never been in possession of the land in dispute which had throughout been cultivated by them (applicants). As rightly pointed out by the lower court, the plea taken up by the applicants stands clearly negatived by their own evidence. Raina D.W. 1 states that the field in dispute was cultivated during the last year and the year before last by the Jagirdars and the opposite party Virchand D.W. 2 who alleges himself to be the scribe of the account books of the applicants states that in Svt. 2006, four bighas of land was cultivated by Raga, opposite party. Jawahar Singh, D.W. 3 states that in Svt. 2007 four bighas of land was cultivated by Raga, and this statement has been corroborated by Ram Singh another witness of the applicants. Bena another witness or the applicants states that three years ago four bighas were cultivated by Raga. He is not able, however, to give the exact year. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that even if this evidence be believed, it would mean only that the opposite party cultivated four bighas out of the disputed land measuring about 30 bighas. To our mind, this is not a proper approach to the problem. The significance of the statements made by the applicant's witnesses lies in the fact that it exposes the deliberate false charater of the version put forth by them. The veracity of the claim set up by the opposite party simultaneously stands vindicated. It also shows that the land was in possession of the non-applicants although they may have cultivated only 4 bighas out of it during the years in question. The lower court, therefore, was on very firm grounds in rejecting the applicant's evidence.
Coming to the account books produced by the applicant's we would like to observe that this evidence being prepared by the employees of the applicants in the absence of the tenants belongs to the self serving type of evidence. Evidence, value of such evidence has got to be carefully appraised and the entries themselves have to be scrutinised with care along with the circumstances under which they were made. Virchand has stated that he is not aware as to how many fields in that locality bear the name 'Padar' Ramsingh, a witness of the applicants, has pointed out clearly that there are two fields in the village bearing the name 'Padar.' Virchand has expressed his inability to give the boundaries of the land in dispute. The possibility therefore is not excluded that the Padarwala field relevant to the entries produced by the applicants may be other than the disputed one. Considering the entire circumstances of the case we are of the opinion that there is no substance in this revision which is hereby rejected.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.