- (1.) THIS is an application in revision against the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ejectment, Sikar dated 30. 10. 1952 whereby he reinstated the opposite party on the disputed land under sec. 7 (2) of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, 1949.
(2.) BHEBA Jat, the opposite party who alleges himself to be the sub-tenant of Mst. Daldi applicant for the last three years including the preceding year Svt. 2009, complained to the S. D. O. Ejectment Sikar on 8. 9. 52 that the had been dispossessed from the disputed land, measuring bighas 29-10 pukhta situated in village Dinarpur, Tehsil Fatehpur, by Mala applicant and prayed for reinstatement. In support of his possession in Svt. 2008 he produced an extract from Khasra Girdawari of village Dinarpura in which the disputed land, field Nos. 44,45, area bighas 8-5 and bighas 21 respectively, were recorded in the khatedari of Hanuta the deceased husband of Mst. Deldi applicant and BHEBA the opposite party was recorded as sub-tenant. The applicants adduced evidence to show that the dispute land belonged to Mala who had mortgaged it to Hanuta the husband of Mst. Daldi, that Hanuta got a parcha 'khatedari of the land in his favour, that the applicant Mala regained possession of the land from Mst. Daldi applicant on redemption of the debt, that the land has been in cultivation of Mst. Daldi and the opposite party pad in collusion with the patwari got false entries made as sub-tenant. The learned lower court came to the conclusion that the actual cultivating possession during the last year was held by the opposite party and that Mala Bhat applicant had no right to dispossess the actual cultivator on his own account. He, therefore,ordered the opposite party to be restored to possession. I have heard the counsel for either party and have gone through the record of the case. The learned counsel for the applicants has argued that no evidence has been adduced by the opposite party to prove wrongful dispossession. The oral evidence as well as the documentary evidence of the khasra girdawari produced by the opposite party clearly support the opposite party's case and prove that he was in possession of the dispute land in Svt, 2008. Of course, there is no forcible dispossession but the fact that Mala applicant entered into the possession of the fields when the opposite party was absent in some other village establishes the wrongful dispossession of the opposite party. Another contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that khasra girdawari is not a public document. It involves a law point on which he refers me to a decision of the Jaipur High Court in Narain vs. Ganesh, (the Jaipur Law Reports 1948 page 351) dated the 13th Sept. 1948. In this, the learned Judges have held that the khasra and khatauni are not public documents as the entries therein are not made by a public servant in the discharge of his official duties, or by any other person in the performance of his duties especially enjoined by law. "the agency who prepared the khasra and the khatauni in that case is not mentioned in the judgment of the Jaipur High Court. In the present case the khasra was prepared by a patwari who is a public servant and the record and papers kept by him, including khasra girdawari, are public records under sec. 70 of the Jaipur State Grant Land Tenures Act. 1947 which reads as follows: - "every kanugo and patwari and every person appointed temporarily to discharge the duties of any such officer shall be deemed to be a public servant within the meaning of the Jaipur Penal Code and all official records and papers kept by any such officer shall be held to be public records and the property of Government. " In this case the oral evidence produced by the applicant has shown that the Patwari carried out girdawari in every harvest. Thus the entries made by him are in the discharge of his official duties enjoined upon him by the State Grant Land Tenures Act. In this connection Sec. 74 of the same Act provides as given below: - "all entries made in the record of rights or annual registers shall be presumed to be true until the contrary is proved. " Obviously, the applicants have taken no steps to get the entries in the khasra girdawari which is an annual register, cancelled by a competent authority by proving them as incorrect, and the entries made will be presumed to be correct. In support of the plea for redemption of mortgage a 'ruqa' (letter) signed by Mst. Daldi has been produced. This has not been proved by examining the scribe, Surja Ram. Redemption of mortgage is generally noted on the original mortgage deed which has not been produced. The absence of a mortgage deed, and the lack of any entries about the mortgage in the Patwari's khasra Girdawari, and the fact that the "ruqa" of redemption was not proved, make the story of mortgage as highly incredible. I, therefore, entirely agree with the learned lower court in holding that the cultivating possession of Bheba the opposite party, in Svt. 2008, and his dispossession by the applicants is proved by evidence, and find no grounds to interfere with his judgment. The revision application is rejected. . ;