KAMESHWAR SINGH BAHADUR Vs. KRISHNA CHANDRMA JEW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit for a declaration that the interest of the defendant in a certain Khata No. 19 of Mouza Basarh is not the interest of a mokarrari tenure-holder but the interest of an ordinary tenure-holder not withstanding a recent entry in the Record of Rights in favour of the defendant. The lower Courts have concurrently taken a view against the defendant who has now come up here in second appeal.

(2.) The first contention on behalf of the defendant is that the lower Appellate Court has misplaced the onus when it observes: It is also a well-settled principle of law that when the entries are disputed, it becomes incumbent upon the party relying on them to show their correctness by producing the evidence of anterior period to establish the foundation on which the entries were made.

(3.) The entrius referred to are entries in the Record of Rights, and if the learned Additional District Judge intended to lay it down that it is for the party which relies on the Record of Rights to support it (when challenged by the other side) by producing evidence of a period anterior to the Record of Rights, he clearly fell into an error, for it is well settled and requires no authority to be cited that it is for the party challenging the Record of Rights to displace the presumption of correctness that applies to it by statute.