- (1.) THIS second appeal is directed against the appeal order of the learned Additional Commissioner, Jaipur dated 26-4-54 confirming the decision of the S. D. O. Rajgarh dated 26-4-54 by which he had dismissed the plaintiff appellant's suit for a declaration of her tenancy and possession over land khasra No. 68 and issue of an in junction restraining the respondents from interfering with her cultivation and possession over the land.
(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and have carefully perused the record of the case. The appellant's case is that she got this land from her husband Pratap Singh Jagirdar of the village, respondent No. 5 for purposes of cultivation and the same was recorded in her name as a khatedar in possession in khasra teep from Svt. 2007 to 2009 and that the defendants No. 1,2,3,4 who had never cultivated this land in the past were unlawfully interfering with her possession by posing themselves as tenants in possession of this land. She therefore prayed that the might be declared as a tenant of this land and in case the defendants claimed possession over it, the same may be declared unlawful and she might be put in possession thereof and further that the defendants be restrained from interfering with her cultivation in future. Pratap Singh defendant No. 5 supported the claim of the plaintiff and added in his written statement that he had given the land in question to his wife (appellant) in her havala and that the same was in her cultivatory possession since Svt. 2007 and that the other defendants had no concern with this land and were never admitted by him as his tenants. The suit was completely denied by the defendants N. 1,2, 3,4 who pleaded that they were the tenants of Partap Singh and had been in possession of this land since long and that Partap Singh having failed in his attempt to evict them had bolstered up this case in the name of his wife on the basis of incorrect entries made in the khasra teep in collusion with the Patwari of the village. The trial court framed necessary issues,examined the oral and documentary evidence of the parties and dismissed the suit. In appeal before the Additional Commissioner the appellant met the same fate. Hence this second appeal against the concurrent findings of both the courts. The learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the validity of the order of the lower couurts on three counts viz. (i) entries in khasra teep (Ex. P. l) for Svt. 2007 to 2009 being in the name of the appellant, their correctness should have been presumed to prove her possession ; (ii) Undue reliance was placed on the judgment of the Munsiff dated 9-12-53 which was in-admissible in evidence, (iii) Oral evidence produced by the appellant was neither fully discussed nor due weight was given to it. In respect of the entries khasra teep, the contention of the learned counsel is that these were made by the patwari at the time of girdawari in the khasra which was a public document and therefore their correctness should be presumed, There is no force in this contention, as although a khasra girdawari prepared by Patwari is a public document and an entry therein may be a relevant fact under sec. 35 of the Evidence Act, yet it does not carry with it any statutory presumption of its correctness like the Record of rights or the Annual Revenue Record. The appellant who relied on this document did not prove its correctness by convincing and strong independent evidence. The Patwari (Mohan Lal) deposed that it was for the first time that a khasra girdawari was prepared in this village in Smt,2007and that the entries in that year were not made by him, but by Phunda Lal who was not examined As regards entries for Svt. 2008 and 2009, he states that he made the same in the presence of Har Sahai Defendant. This statement is supported by any other witness except Pratap Singh himself. All the other witnesses have deposed that they did not accompany the Patwari at the time of girdawari to this filed and that non of the respondents was present there at site. The respondents cannot evidently be penalised on the basis of such entries in gasht girdawari which were made behind their back. The first appellate court has therefore rightly refused to rely on the khasra teep entries and the same view is confirmed by us. As regards the second point, the learned counsel has vehemently argued that both the courts below wrongly admitted in evidence and unduly relied on the order of Munsiff produced by the respondents. We have read the said order of 8-12-52 and found that it is a certified copy of a judgment given by a judicial court. There can hardly be any doubt about its admissibility in evidence as it is a certified copy of a public document. According to that order which appears to be final, as it conceded that it was not reversed or modified in appeal, the land in dispute was declared to be in the cultivatory possession of the defendants and their possession was restored over it in a suit between Pratap Singh and the present respondents. The trial court has in our opinion rightly observed that in view of the said order of the Munsiff's court the oral evidence to prove that the respondents were not in possession of this land was of no avail. In fact Kanahya Lal P. W. 3, on a court question, clearly stated that Har Sahai respondent was in possession of this land when the Tehsildar Munsiff announced the order. We therefore agree with the courts below and hold that the Munsiff's order dated 8-12-53 was rightly admitted in evidence and it clearly proved the possession of the respondents on this land upto the date of the order. In respect of the third point viz. that the trial and the appellate courts did not discuss the evidence, we find that the Addl. Commissioner discussed the entire evidence at full length in his judgment covering ten typed pages. He assigned good reasons for disbelieving the evidence of the appellant and rightly observed that the appellants could succeed on the strength of her own case and not on the weekness of the respondent's case. We agree with him and hold that the appellant has not been able to prove her case by any independent and dependable evidence as all her witnesses had admitted that they were under the influence of Pratap Singh for one reason or the other and had given evidence against the respondents in a previous litigation between Pratap Singh and the respondent in respect of this very land. The respondents have in their own statements denied the allegations made against them and have also adduced evidence in support of the fact that the land has ever since been in their cutlivatory possession. It is also clear now from a closer analysis of the facts on record that Pratap Singh having failed to oust the defendants from this land by unsuccessfully running them down in civil and criminal courts, thought of this new contrivance by getting entries in the khasra teep recorded in the name of his wife through the Patwari with hope that she will be able to evict them in a revenue court on the basis of these entires. But facts could not be distorted too much and witnesses did not suborn themselves as much as she expected. Taking all these facts into consideration we hold that both the lower-courts rightly dismissed the suit. The result is (hat (he appeal is dismissed and the order of the lower-courts is upheld. .;