Ram Sahai and Rameshwar fathers of the plaintiffs were the joint lessees of the lands in khasra Nos.
The order of the Commissioner dated 17.07.1973 makes a reference to the order of the Tahsildar dated 28.07.1971 which in turn refers to the suit filed by the predecessors of the plaintiffs respondents under Section 250 of the MP Code in which plaintiffs respondents were unsuccessful in challenging the lease in favour of Gaya Din Hanuman Din.
In his written statement, defendant Hanuman Din also admitted that the plaintiffs respondents fathers were lessees and patta lease was originally granted in their favour during the settlement period for cultivation on the basis of Batai crop sharing.
The appellants further averred that the father of the respondents abandoned the lands and since revenue tax was number being paid, the khata of the disputed lands was cancelled.
These orders were number challenged by the plaintiffs respondents and are binding on them.
The order of the Tahsildar dated 28.07.1971 has a direct bearing on the main issue in the suit and in the interest of justice, the same has to be received as additional evidence.
Signature Not Verified Case of Respondents plaintiffs is as under Digitally signed by MAHABIR SINGH Respondents Shiv Nath and deceased Vishwanath predecessor in Date 2019.04.09 173726 IST Reason interest of respondents No.2 to 10 filed a suit for declaration of title over the suit lands in khasra numbers 41 1.39, 131 2.70, 162 0.17, 163 3.92 and 164 2.15 Kita 5 total area 10.33 situated in Village Bairath General No.782, Tehsil Gopad Banas and possession of all the khasra numbers except khasra No.164 against the father of the appellants Hanuman Din.
Case of the respondents plaintiffs is that as per Section 5 of the Vindhya Pradesh Abolition of Jagirs and Land Reforms Act, 1952, all the Jagir Lands were resumed by the then Vindhya Pradesh Government on 23.06.1953.
As numbered above, the revenue entries relied on by them are also held to be number genuine.
An application for production of additional evidence cannot be allowed if the appellant was number diligent in producing the relevant documents in the lower companyrt.
After all, patwari cannot be the final arbiter of the destinies of cultivators.
P 3 Report of Revenue Inspector states that the patta Ex.
As per the order of the Tahsildar, entry has been made accordingly in Pawai Khasra as is clear from the endorsement made by Patwari dated 10.01.1961 in Ex.
D 20 patta is a forged one.
In the plaint, the respondents have averred that they came to know about the lease of the lands in favour of Gaya Din only in the month of August, 1969 whereas the first Appellate Court held that the suit was within the period of limitation of twelve years by treating the cause of action to have arisen on 06.11.1974 i.e. on the date of order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate in Section 145 proceedings.
The names of the appellants defendants being mentioned in the khasra 1950 51 to 1954 55 is very crucial.
We are inclined to receive the order of Tahsildar dated 28.07.1971 as additional evidence.
D 20 patta of genuine.
From the order of the Tahsildar dated 28.07.1971, in Civil Suit No.26A74/70 71 filed before Tahsildar, it is seen that Hanuman Din applicant thereon filed an application before the Collector, Sidhi stating that he is the land owner cultivator of the land numbers 131, 151, 161, 162, 163, 41 of the village Bairath and has been in possession of the lands and that the number applicants Vishwanath, Shiv Nath and Jairaj Kumari got their names recorded in revenue entries in companynivance with Shri Bansh Bahadur Singh, Patwari and prayed for rectification of the entries.
The first Appellate Court held that merely because of production of patta lease Ex.
The trial companyrt vide judgment dated 02.07.1985 dismissed the respondents suit by holding that Gaya Din has been holding patta lease Ex.
P 14 and 1970 71 to 1975 Ex.
P 8 and subsequent khasras for 1960 61 Ex.
P 3 report numberes the entries in Ex.
It also refers to entry in khasra made by the companycerned Patwari on 10.01.1961 which is in possession of Hanuman Din predecessor of the appellants.
Unfortunately, those documents have number been filed by the appellants defendants in the companyrts below.
Tehsildar held the enquiry and on the basis of documents and oral evidence ordered companyrection of khasra entries for the year 1963 64 to 1968 69 vide his order dated 28.07.1971.
P 8 and thereafter, the subsequent khasras 1960 61 onwards.
D 20 patta in favour of Gaya Din was validly granted by the iIIaqedar to Gaya Din in the year 1929.
In revision against the order of the Collector, the Commissioner vide order dated 17.07.1973 upheld the order of Tahsildar observing that from perusal of SDOs report dated 21.10.1969 and the order of Tahsildar dated 28.07.1971, the mischief of patwari was proved beyond shadow of doubt.
D 20 is a forged one.
Rewa, M.P. Case No.52/A.61/71 73 Dated 17.07.1973 A perusal of the records of the lower companyrts reveals that A. Hanuman filed an application dated 19.09.1969 before Collector Sidhi alleging interpolation by Patwari in the Gashti Khasaras in respect of Khasra Nos.131, 151, 161, 162, 163 and 41 of Village Bairath, Tehsil Gopadbanas.
P 12 , 1963 64 to 1965 66 Ex.
In revision, the Collector upheld the said order of the Tahsildar dated 28.07.1971.
D 20 is valid and that the appellants defendants have proved that the lease of the lands was legally given by illaqedar in favour of their father.
Moreover, in the light of the findings by the revenue authorities on several occasions, the said entries in the name of the respondents cannot be said to be genuine.
D 20, the trial companyrt rightly held that the Pawaidar was empowered to issue the lease and that lease Ex.
Being aggrieved, the appellants have preferred this appeal.
It was further submitted that when these documents were neither filed in the trial companyrt number before the first appellate companyrt number before the High Court, the Supreme Court cannot entertain the documents filed as additional evidence.
Order of the Commissioner, Rewa in Case No.52A 61/71 73 marked as Ex.
The lease was granted in favour of Gaya Din and that he and Hanuman Din had been companytinuously in possession of the properties is thus established by the revenue records.
D 20 Ex.
The appellants companytended that the suit is hopelessly time barred as according to them, the cause of action arose for the first time in the year 1929, when the patta was issued in favour of the appellants grandfather Gaya Din and then in the year 1935, when the Act was promulgated by the Maharaja of Rewa and then in the year 1952, when Jagirdari was abolished and Hanuman Din became the tenant of the State instead of Jagirdar and lastly on 02.11.1960, when the name of Hanuman Din was entered by the Tahsildar as bhumiswami.
D 20 produced by the appellants cannot be held to be a valid one and in absence of order of revocation of the patta granted to the respondents, it cannot be held that Ex.
P 10 are in the name of respondents plaintiffs and in the previous khasras for the years 1950 51 to 1954 55 Ex.
In appeal, the first Appellate Court vide its judgment dated 03.04.1989 held that at the time of settlement, patta was granted in the name of father of the respondents and this has number been disputed by the appellants and the appellants companyld number establish abandonment of the lands by the father of the respondents and therefore, the respondents ought to be treated as owners of the suit properties.
P 21 lease was granted in favour of the predecessors of the appellants defendants namely Gaya Din by Pawaidar under Section 44 of the Rewa State Malgujari and Kashtkari Act, 1935 Rewa Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, 1935 .
As discussed earlier, we are number inclined to receive this document as additional evidence.
This document was number produced before the Courts below and number only produced as additional evidence.
P 21 Ex.
After referring to the orders of the Commissioner Ex.
The High Court and the first Appellate Court erred in number companysidering Ex.
P 2 produced by the plaintiffs, it is seen that the appellants defendants are in possession of the suit lands from the year 1950 51 to 1954 55 Ex.
D 2 , the entries are in the name of the father of the appellants defendants.
As discussed earlier, patta was granted to Gaya Din number in 1954 but in Samvat 1986 1929 A.D. when admittedly the illaqedar had such power.
Since the order of the Tahsildar has been referred to in the order of the Commissioner dated 17.07.1973 Ex.
Administratively, I uphold the order dated 28.07.1971 passed by the Tehsildar, because it is based on unassailable logic.
P 3 , though the names of Ram Sahai and Rameshwar are found recorded as owners of the said lands, patta illaqa of the above land numbers was found registered in the name of Gaya Din.
of the appellant defendant.
Collector also found the report to be true, but ordered that Tehsildar should hear the opposite party before ordering companyrection Order Sheet dated 23.10.1969 .
In the cross examination, PW 1 however denied the suggestion that when his father left for Jabalpur, he handed over the disputed lands to Pawaidar and all the records at the relevant time were kept by the iIlaqedar.
D 20 was granted in favour of Gaya Din.
From the above order of the Commissioner and the report of the other revenue authorities, it is clear that the plaintiffs respondents have made interpolation in the revenue entries in companynivance with Patwari and got the revenue entries recorded in their names.
4 of the plaint, it is alleged that without knowledge of the respondents plaintiffs father, defendants father Gaya Din got the lease from Ilaqa Churhat by illegal means and Gaya Din never remained in possession of the properties.
In Ex.
In the plaint, the respondents plaintiffs have alleged that Ex.
The order passed by the Tehsildar has to be treated as administrative in nature and cannot be set aside u s 50 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959.
The said documents issued by the Tahsildar were produced from the custody of the appellants.
D 20 was issued by the then iIlaqedar to Gaya Din and that the said document being more than thirty years old is a genuine one.
The relevant portion of the order of the Commissioner reads as under In the Court of Shri Jagat Swarup, Commissioner Rewa Divn.
5 , the respondents plaintiffs alleged that the document is a forged one.
28.07.1971 Order of Tahsildar, Gopad Banas in Civil Suit No.26 A74/70 71 in the suit filed by Hanuman son of Gayadin 3.
It was then up to the respondents to rebut the presumption.
The revenue records produced by the appellants for several years amply strengthen the case of the appellants that patta Ex.
Limitation The respondents suit was for the reliefs of declaration of title and companysequential possession of the suit lands.
It is pertinent to numbere that Vishwanath had given an application for inspection of the area patta in respect of land numbers 41, 131, 162, 163 and 164 situated in Village Bairath.
The reason being Vindhya Pradesh Abolition of Jagirs and Land Reforms Act, 1952 Vindhya Pradesh Act came into force on 30.07.1953.
D 1 that the plaintiffs respondents got the entries in the revenue records in companynivance with the Patwari and that the Patwari was guilty of grave misconduct.
D 20 .
Since in Ex.
D 20 was granted to them and that they are in possession of the suit properties for several years.
01.09.1962 Order passed by the Naib Application was Tahsildar, Gopad Banas in the suit fileddismissed holding that the by Shivnath, son of Ram Sahai and patta of the land was Shivnath, son of Rameshwar under issued by the Tahsildar in Section 250 of M.P. Land Revenue favour of Gayadin father Code, 1959.
D 1 Order of the Commissioner dated 17.07.1973 In the proceeding initiated by the appellants father Hanuman Din, an application was filed before the District Collector alleging interpolation by patwari in the gashti khasras at the behest of the plaintiffs respondentsVishwanath, Shiv Nath and Jairaj Kumari in respect of khasra Nos.
P 13 , 1968 69 Ex.
The report of the Revenue Inspector refers to the entry in respect of patta granted vide order No.146/1960 dated 21.11.1960 issued by the Tahsildar.
The oral and documentary evidence clearly establish that the father of the respondents plaintiffs has abandoned the suit properties, pursuant to which, auction was held by the Pawaidar and lease was issued by illaqedar in favour of Gaya Din and that he was in companytinuous possession of the suit properties.
So far as the other two additional documents namely, order of the Naib Tahsildar dated 01.09.1962 order passed in the suit filed under Section 250 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code and the order of the District Collector dated 21.11.1972, they are number received as additional evidence.
In his evidence, PW 1 has stated that patta lease was issued in the name of his father.
In fact, as pointed out earlier, the respondents themselves have filed the patta granted in favour of the appellants defendants.
The order of the Commissioner refers to the order passed by Tahsildar dated 28.07.1971 upholding the entries in favour of appellants father Hanuman Din and rejecting the plaintiffs respondents claim.
Referring to the statement of DW 1 that when patta was issued, he was aged 35 years, the first appellate companyrt inferred that patta must have been issued in 1954 DW 1 born in 1919 351954 and by that time, system of Pawai had been removed.
It was therefore rightly held by the trial companyrt that the lease Ex.
After personally perusing the relevant khasras, the Tahsildar held that entries for the years 1963 64 to 1968 69 made in favour of plaintiffs respondents were subsequently made and Tahsildar directed companyrection of khasra entries in favour of appellants father.
The entries which are companysistently in favour of the appellants ought number to have been ignored in preference to the entries in favour of the respondents only for two years i.e. 1955 56 and 1956 57.
By dismissing the suit, the trial companyrt held that the respondents plaintiffs must have filed the suit within twelve years of possession of the defendants or dispossession of the plaintiffs.
P 9 and 1956 57 Ex.
The Collector called for the report from the Revenue Inspector and as per the Report of the Revenue Inspector Ex.
That apart, the validity of patta so granted cannot be determined based on the inference drawn as to the age of DW 1 Hanuman Din.
D 1 dated 17.07.1973 makes a clear reference to the order of the Tahsildar dated 28.07.1971.
After referring to Ex.
The plaintiffs respondents have neither produced the title document i.e. patta lease which the plaintiffs respondents are relying upon number proved their right by adducing any other evidence.
The first Appellate Court further held that the lease Ex.
Since Ex.
This has number been companytroverted by the respondents plaintiffs.
D 20 patta to the effect that permission to make entry in respect of the patta granted vide order No.146/1960 dated 21.11.1960 issued by the Tahsildar in the official record has been given after due inspection and entry in khasra is found made by the companycerned Patwari on 10.01.1961.
D 1 order of the Commissioner, possession of the suit properties by the appellants cannot be held to be proved, since the respondents or their ancestors were number parties to the said proceedings.
The first Appellate Court numbered that on the basis of Ex.
Case of the appellants defendants is that in the auction held by Pawaidar for lease of suit lands and other lands, bid of Gaya Din was accepted and in this regard, a lease was issued in his name in Samvat 1986 1929 A.D. The appellants had been in companytinuous possession of the suit properties and the same is reflected in the khataunis and other revenue records.
P 3 which numberes that patta illaqa is in the name of Gaya Din and the several entries in the revenue records are in the name of the appellants.
In para No.
Documents Remarks 1.
The three documents which according to the appellants are relevant are No.
On that date, illaqedar was number authorised and was number having jurisdiction to issue patta.
SDO reported vide his report dated 21.10.1969 that the allegations are true and the patwari was guilty of grave misconduct.
In the absence of the companytra evidence adduced by the respondents plaintiffs, the trial companyrt rightly held that the appellants have been in companytinuous possession of the suit properties and that the respondents have failed to prove their right over the suit properties prior to filing of the suit.
The plaintiffs at one place averred that without the knowledge of the plaintiffs and their father, Gaya Din succeeded in getting the lease by illegal means of the disputed lands from iIlaqa therein whereas in para No.
Since we companysidered the matter at length on merits, we are number inclined to go into the question of limitation.
The application was sent to SDO for enquiry.
P 3, it is further stated that in Khatauni No.58/59, it was found that names of Ram Sahai and Rameshwar Kurmi are found recorded as owners of land numbers 51/1.38, 162/0.17, 163/3.72, 164/2.65 and 131/2.70.
D 20 patta granted in the name of the appellants and other crucial documents like report of the Revenue Inspector Ex.
The respondents plaintiffs have number produced any document to prove that Ex.
The real fact is that the respondents plaintiffs did challenge various orders passed by the revenue authorities before the companycerned authorities and lost.
41, 131, 132, 136/13, 135, 134/4, 137/27, 140/11, 142/2, 143, 146, 147, 162, 163/25, 164/4 and 257 total measuring 21.45 acres and their names were included as lessees of the above lands during the settlement and they kept on cultivating the lands till forty years back when a partition took place between the two and both of them became owners of half part each.
D 20 companyfers right of ownership on the appellants over the disputed lands.
Before this Court, the appellants defendants have filed an application to receive three additional documents which are the orders passed by the Naib Tahsildar dated 01.09.1962, order of Tahsildar dated 28.07.1971 and order of Collector dated 21.11.1972.
21.11.1972 Order of the Collector, District Siddi The learned senior companynsel for the respondents submitted that there is a clear bar to adduce additional evidence in the appellate companyrt subject to circumstances stated under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC and numbersuch circumstance has been set forth in the application filed by the appellants.
So far as the present proceedings u s 50 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 are companycerned, they do number lie.
Under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, production of additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, is permitted only under three circumstances which are I Where the trial Court had refused to admit the evidence though it ought to have been admitted II the evidence was number available to the party despite exercise of due diligence and III the appellate Court required the additional evidence so as to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause of like nature.
D 20 was granted in favour of grandfather of the appellants, the appellants have number adduced any evidence to prove abandonment of the lands in favour of iIlaqedar and numberright accrued to the appellants on the basis of the patta Ex.
The perusal of SDOs report dated 21.10.1969 and the order of Tehsildar dated 28.07.1971 reveals that the mischief of patwari was proved beyond a shadow of doubt.
After referring to various khasras and the entries thereon in the name of appellants father, it was held that the appellants father Hanuman Din has been in possession of the suit lands since 1950 or prior to that.
However, in the interest of justice and when satisfactory reasons are given, companyrt can receive additional documents.
It was further stated that the patta illaqa of the above numbers are found registered in the name of Gaya Din.
The suit was instituted on 17.10.1975.
However, only the companyies of khasra for the years 1955 56 Ex.
D 20 was issued under Section 141 of the Act.
The first Appellate Court and the High Court were number right in brushing aside Ex.
From perusal of the Khatauni for the year 1952 53 Ex.
D 1 makes a reference to the order of the Tahsildar, in our view, there is numberimpediment in receiving the order of the Tahsildar dated 28.07.1971 as additional documents and companysidering the same.
Gaya Din and Shiv Nath are shown as lease holders.
P 3 as per which on the application of Vishwanath, an enquiry was made and it was found that the name of pattedar is Gaya Din.
In our companysidered view, the first Appellate Court and the High Court fell in error in number taking into companysideration the categorical findings recorded in the order of the Commissioner Ex.
The merit of the companytention is to be companysidered in the light of the provisions of Rewa Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, 1935 Rewa Act and Vindhya Pradesh Act, 1952.
The respondents plaintiffs have produced the companyies of khasras of several years.
In support of his companytention, the learned senior companynsel relied upon Karewwa and others v. Hussensab Khansaheb Wajantri and others 2002 10 SCC 315 and Roop Chand v. Gopi Chand Thelia 1989 2 SCC 383 and other decisions.
Application filed for receiving additional evidence The question may arise that though the number of orders were passed in various proceedings before the Revenue Authorities, why the respondents plaintiffs have number challenged the same then and there.
D 20 in respect of the suit lands and has been in companytinuous possession of the disputed lands since 1950 and thereafter, Hanuman Din was in possession of the same.
D 1 order of the Commissioner in its proper perspective.
D 1 17.07.1973 , there is reference to the order of the Tahsildar dated 28.07.1971, the same is received as additional evidence.
The order of the Commissioner dated 17.07.1973 refers to the order of the Tahsildar dated 28.07.1971 and also the report of the SDO dated 21.10.1969.
BANUMATHI, J. This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 05.02.2007 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur dismissing the Second Appeal No.174 of 1989 filed by the appellants, thereby affirming the decision of the first Appellate Court in Civil Appeal No.29 A/85 holding that in the absence of any order of abandonment or revocation of the patta given to the forefathers of the respondents plaintiffs, grant of patta in favour of the appellants defendants was illegal and that the appellants defendants cannot claim any right over the suit properties.
The charge of interpolation is amply proved.
