Holding

The Supreme Court held that the statutory presumption of truth in revenue records may be rebutted only by evidence of fraud, surreptitious entry, or failure to follow prescribed procedure, and that the burden of proving a landlord‑tenant relationship lies with the party asserting it, which the defendant failed to discharge.

Summary

The plaintiffs, heirs of Shri Partap Singh, sued Shiv Ram alleging ownership of certain lands and seeking possession and injunctions, while the defendant claimed to be a tenant and that the suit should be tried in the revenue court. The trial court, relying on oral testimony, held that the presumption of truth in the Jamabandi and Khasra Girdawari could be rebutted, finding the defendant a tenant. On appeal, the High Court affirmed that view. The Supreme Court examined Sections 32, 34, 45 and 46 of the Himachal Land Revenue Act, 1954 and Section 109 of the Indian Evidence Act, holding that the statutory presumption attached to revenue records can be overturned only by proof of fraud, surreptitious entry, or non‑compliance with prescribed procedure, not by oral evidence. It further ruled that the burden of proving a landlord‑tenant relationship lies on the party asserting it, which the defendant failed to meet. Consequently, the High Court’s order was set aside and the decree of the first appellate court was upheld.

Issues considered

Whether the presumption of truth attached to entries in the record-of-rights and periodical record under the Himachal Land Revenue Act, 1954 can be rebutted by oral evidence alone.
Whether the burden of proving a landlord‑tenant relationship rests on the party asserting it under Section 109 of the Evidence Act.
Whether the defendant is a tenant or a trespasser concerning the disputed land.
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for possession of the land.
Whether statements made in revenue‑court correction proceedings are admissible as evidence in a civil suit.

Legislation cited

Himachal Land Revenue Act, 1954s. 32(2)(a), s. 34, s. 45, s. 46
Indian Evidence Act, 1872s. 109, s. 35
Specified Relief Act, 1963

Subjects

landlord-tenant relationshippresumption of truthrevenue recordsJamabandiKhasra Girdawariburden of proofHimachal Land Revenue ActIndian Evidence Actoral evidencetenancypossession

Judgment

694 [2020]
SUPREME COURT 1 S.C.R. 694
REPORTS [2020] 1 S.C.R.

A SHRI PARTAP SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.
v.
SHIV RAM (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.
(Civil Appeal No. 1511 of 2020)
B FEBRUARY 20, 2020
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Himachal Land Revenue Act, 1954: ss. 32(2)(a) , 34 – Record-
of-rights and periodical record – Presumption in favour of entries
therein – Rebuttal of – Held: Presumption of truth attached to the
C
record-of-rights can be rebutted only if there is a fraud in the entry
or the entry was surreptitiously made or that prescribed procedure
was not followed – Reliance cannot be placed on the oral evidence
to rebut the statutory presumption as the credibility of oral evidence
vis-a-vis documentary evidence is at a much weaker level – Burden
D of proving relationship of tenancy is on the person who asserts
such a relationship as per s. 109 of the Evidence Act – On facts, no
relationship of landlord and tenant is mentioned in the revenue record
– In the absence of entry in the revenue record, which is also
expected to contain the entry of rent and possession, the tenancy
cannot be treated to be in existence only on the basis of oral evidence
E
– Burden of proving the relationship was on the defendant –
Presumption of truth attached to the revenue record can be rebutted
only on the basis of evidence of impeccable integrity and reliability
– Defendant failed to rebut the presumption of truth on the basis of
reliable, trustworthy and cogent documentary evidence to prove
F the relationship of a tenant – High Court erred in allowing the
defendant’s appeal relying upon oral evidence to rebut the statutory
presumption of truth attached to the revenue record – Order of the
High Court is set aside and the judgment passed by the first appellate
court is upheld.
G Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 As per Section 32(2)(a) of the Himachal Land
Revenue Act, 1954, record-of-rights, i.e. Jamabandi, shall include
the name of persons who are landowners, tenants or assignees
of land revenue and also the rent, land revenue, rates, cesses or
H
694
SHRI PARTAP SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ORS. v. 695
SHIV RAM (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.

other payments due from and to each of those persons and to the A
Government. On the other hand, the periodical record, i.e. Khasra
Girdawari, as mentioned in Section 34 of the Act, is to be prepared
every year as the proof of the statements, as mentioned in sub-
section (2) clause (a) of Section 32, which includes the name of
the landowners, tenants and the rent and land revenue payable.
B
In terms of Section 45 of the 1954 Act, the record-of-rights as
prepared in terms of Sections 32 and 34 of the 1954 Act carries a
presumption of truth. Still further, any person who is aggrieved
by any entry in the record-of-rights or in a periodical record has
a right to invoke the jurisdiction of the Civil Court for correction
of the entries in terms of Section 46 of the 1954 Act. [Para 15][703- C
E-F]
1.2 The detailed procedure for recording of periodical
record-of-rights as well as the record-of-rights in terms of Sections
32 & 34 of the 1954 Act has been prescribed. The record-of-
rights contains entries of the revenue record for the four years. D
Such record-of-rights carries the presumption of correctness in
terms of Section 45 of the 1954 Act and also Section 35 of the
Indian Evidence Act, 18721. Section 109 of the Evidence Act
further contemplates that whether there exists a relationship of
landowner and tenant and the burden of proving such a relationship
is on the person who affirms it. [Para 16][703-G-H; 704-A] E

1.3 In the State of Himachal Pradesh, Jamabandi, under
Section 32 of the 1954 Act as well as Khasra Girdawari, under
Section 34 of 1954 Act, both are record-of-rights in terms of
Section 32 of the 1954 Act, and have statutory presumption of
truth. [Para 17][704-E-F] F

1.4 The instant is a case where no relationship of landlord
and tenant is mentioned in the revenue record though required
in terms of Section 32(2)(a) of 1954 Act. In the absence of entry
in the revenue record, which is also expected to contain the entry
of rent and possession, the tenancy cannot be treated to be in G
existence only on the basis of oral evidence of the witnesses
examined by the defendant. The burden of proving the relationship
was on the defendant. Such burden cannot be said to be rebutted
only by oral evidence. The witnesses may lie but the documents
H
696 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 1 S.C.R.

A do not, is a golden rule. The presumption of truth attached to the
revenue record can be rebutted only on the basis of evidence of
impeccable integrity and reliability. The oral evidence can always
be adduced contrary to the revenue record but such oral
testimony will not be sufficient to hold that the statutory
presumption stands rebutted. The presumption of truth attached
B
to the record-of-rights can be rebutted only if there is a fraud in
the entry or the entry was surreptitiously made or that prescribed
procedure was not followed. It will not be proper to rely on the
oral evidence to rebut the statutory presumption as the credibility
of oral evidence vis-a-vis documentary evidence is at a much
C weaker level. [Paras 18, 24][705-D-F; 707-G]
1.5 The High Court erred in law in allowing the defendant’s
appeal relying upon oral evidence to rebut the statutory
presumption of truth attached to the revenue record. The onus
of proof was placed on the defendant by the trial court. The burden
D is on the person who asserts such a relationship as per Section
109 of the Evidence Act. The defendant has failed to rebut the
presumption of truth on the basis of reliable, trustworthy and
cogent documentary evidence to prove the relationship of a tenant.
The order of the High Court is set aside and the judgment and
decree passed by the First Appellate Court is affirmed. [Paras
E 25, 26][708-A-C]
Vishwa Vijai Bharti v. Fakhrul Hasan & Ors. (1976) 3
SCC 642; Bhimappa Channappa Kapali (Dead) by LRS.
v. Bhimappa Satyappa Kamagouda (Dead) by LRS. and
Others (2012) 13 SCC 759; Guru Amarjit Singh v.
F Rattan Chand and Others AIR 1994 SC 227 – relied
on.
Harish Chander and Others v. Ghisa Ram and Another
(1981) 1 SCC 431; Sodhi Transport Co. and Others v.
State of U.P. and Others (1986) 2 SCC 486; Kumar
G Exports v. Sharma Carpets (2009) 2 SCC 513 –
referred to.
Case Law Reference
(1981) 1 SCC 431 referred to. Para 17
H (1986) 2 SCC 486 referred to. Para 21
SHRI PARTAP SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ORS. v. 697
SHIV RAM (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.

(2009) 2 SCC 513 referred to. Para 22 A
(1976) 3 SCC 642 relied on. Para 23
AIR 1994 SC 227 relied on. Para 23
(2012) 13 SCC 759 relied on. Para 23
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1511 of B
2020.
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.09.2016 of the High Court
of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in RSA No. 258 of 2006.
Ms. Bina Madhavan, Ms. Sweena Nair, M/s. Lawyer S. Knit &
C
Co, Advs. for the Appellants.
Abhimanyu Jhamba, Ms. Thonpinao Thangal, Ms. Hemlata Ranga,
Hatneimawi, Saroj Shaji, Mohit Poswal, Samir Ali Khan, Gagan Gupta,
Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by D
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
1. The present appeal is directed against an order passed by the
High Court of Himachal Pradesh on 19th September 2016 whereby the
defendant’s second appeal was allowed and the suit for a permanent
injunction, mandatory injunction and rendition of accounts was dismissed. E

2. The suit was filed by plaintiff No. 1 claiming himself to be the
owner of land measuring 53 Bighas 11 Biswas and plaintiff No. 2 claiming
herself to be the owner of land measuring 12 Bighas 16 Biswas. The
plaintiff No. 1 claimed to be ex-ruler of an erstwhile princely state of
Dhami and that had been getting his property managed through various F
persons. The assertion of the plaintiffs is that the defendant was appointed
as a Manager to look after and manage the property and was liable to
render accounts to the plaintiffs after each crop harvest i.e. twice a
year. The defendant had been rendering the accounts and used to be
paid 10% management charges of the income of properties. The G
defendant was also required to maintain a register for keeping the account
of income and expenditure as well as an inventory of the property of the
plaintiffs.
3. The plaintiffs allege that there was misfeasance by the
defendant, therefore, they terminated the agency and asked him to hand
H
698 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 1 S.C.R.

A over the charge of the properties. In view of the said assertion, the suit
for a permanent injunction, mandatory injunction and for possession of 8
plots of land measuring 13 Bighas 14 Biswas was filed.
4. In the written statement, the defendant asserted that he is a
tenant and that suit is exclusively triable by the Revenue Court. He
B further stated that he is paying one half Galla batai in respect of land
measuring 13 Bighas 2 Biswas for the last 12 years. The relevant
assertion made by the defendant reads thus:
“2. That in view of the submissions made in the subsequent paras
of this written statement, it is manifestly clear that this is a dispute
C between a land owner and a tenant and as such, this Court has
got no jurisdiction to try and determine the suit. The suit is
exclusively triable by Revenue Court and, therefore, it deserves
to be stayed.
xx xx xx
D On Merits
The facts which have not been specifically admitted shall be
deemed to have been denied by necessary implication in the written
statement hereinbelow.
1. Para 1 is admitted to the extent that the Plaintiff is the owner of
E
the land described in this para of the Plaint. However, it may be
submitted that the Defendant is a tenant on payment of ½ Galla-
batai in respect of land measuring 13 Bighas 2 Biswas Kitas 7
Khewat Khatauni No.1/1 Khasra Nos. 50(6 Biswas), Khasra No.
51 (3 Biswas) Khasra No. 302/52/1 (2 Bighas), Khasra No. 302/
F 52/3 (17 Biswas), Khasra No. 303/52/1 (6 Bighas 17 Biswa),
Khasra No. 52(2 Bighas 10 Biswas) and Khasra No. 68 (9 Biswas)
situate in Village Kannauri, Pargana Dhamer, Tehsil and District
Shimla for the last more than 12 years. The Defendant has nothing
to do with the other land described in this para of the Plaint. The
entries made in the Jamabandi 1981-82 referred to in this para in
G
respect of the land described in this para of the written statement
are not correct and are contrary to the facts on the spot.”
5. The learned trial court framed as many as 12 issues but for the
purpose of deciding the present appeal, Issue No. 3 is relevant which
reads thus:
H
SHRI PARTAP SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ORS. v. 699
SHIV RAM (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]

“Whether there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between A
the parties as alleged. If so, regarding what property?”
6. The plaintiff appeared as PW-1 and examined some other
witnesses. The plaintiffs in evidence produced the revenue record i.e.
Jamabandi (Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/4) and Khasra Girdawari (Ex.P/5 to P/12)
wherein the property in dispute has been shown to be in the ownership B
and possession of the plaintiffs.
7. The learned trial court considering the oral evidence led by the
defendant returned a finding that the presumption of truth to the revenue
record, specially Jamabandi, stands rebutted as the witness of the
defendant has deposed that the defendant is in possession on payment C
of one half Galla batai. The defendant has examined Iqwal Ali (DW-2)
and also examined Tulsi Ram(DW-5), in support of the defendant’s plea
that he is a tenant on payment of one half Galla batai. Iqwal Ali (DW-2)
claims himself to be in possession prior to induction of the defendant as
tenant whereas Tulsi Ram and Gosaun are said to be the persons who
were collecting rent for the plaintiffs. Such witnesses have deposed that D
they were paying rent on behalf of the defendant. On the basis of the
evidence recorded, the learned trial court returned a finding that though
plaintiffs have proved themselves to be the owners of the suit land but
the land measuring 13 Bighas 2 Biswas was found to be in possession of
the defendant as a tenant, thus granted decree for prohibitory injunction E
except in respect of land found in possession of defendant as tenant.
8. The first appeal against the said judgment was allowed by the
learned District Judge on 26th May 1997. However, in the second appeal
preferred by the defendant, the High Court remitted the matter to the
First Appellate Court to examine the following two questions: F
“1. Whether the defendant is in possession of the land measuring
13 Bighas 2 Biswas (detailed above) as a tenant or a trespasser?
2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree for possession of
the said land?”
G
9. The learned Additional District Judge after the remand allowed
the appeal, inter alia, for the reason that the pleading did not show
when the tenancy was created and, if so, whom and what were the
terms and conditions of the tenancy.

H
700 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 1 S.C.R.

A 10. It may be noticed that the plaintiffs have claimed the defendant
to be the Manager of their Estate but there is concurrent finding that
plaintiffs have failed to prove that the defendant was their Manager.
The defendant has admitted the ownership of the plaintiffs over the suit
land but asserted himself to be the tenant. The onus of proof of Issue
No. 3 was on the defendant. The ownership of the plaintiffs over the
B
suit land not being in dispute, the onus of proof of relationship of landlord
and tenant was rightly placed on the defendant. Therefore, the question
required to be examined is as to whether the entries in revenue record
such as Jamabandi (Ex.P/1 to P/4) and Khasra Girdawari (Ex.P/5 to P/
12) carrying presumption of truth stand rebutted by the oral testimony.
C Some of the provisions of the Himachal Land Revenue Act, 19541 read
as under:-
“32. Record-of-rights and documents included therein.
(1) Save as otherwise provided by this Chapter, there shall be a
record-of-rights for each estate.
D
(2) The record-of-rights for an estate shall include the following
documents, namely:-
(a) Statements showing, so far as may be practicable:
(i) the persons who are land-owners, tenants or assignees of land
E revenue [in the estate of who] receive any of the rents, profits in
the estate, or who are entitled to the produce of the estate, or to
occupy land therein;
(ii) the nature and extent of the interests of those persons, and the
conditions and liabilities attaching thereto; and
F
(iii) the rent, land revenue, rates, cesses or other payments due
from and to each of those persons and to the Government;
(b) a statement of customs respecting rights and liabilities in the
estate.
G (c) a map of the estate; and
(d) such other documents as the Financial Commissioner may,
with the previous sanction of the State Government prescribe.
xx xx xx
1
H For short “1954 Act”
SHRI PARTAP SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ORS. v. 701
SHIV RAM (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]

Section 34. [Periodical] Record. – (1) The Collector shall cause A
to be prepared by the patwari of each estate yearly, or at such
other intervals as the Financial Commissioner may prescribe, an
edition of the record of rights amended in accordance with the
provisions of this Chapter.
(2). This edition of the records of rights shall [omitted the Act no. B
21 of 1976] comprise the statements mentioned in sub-section (2)
clause (a) of Section 32 and as such other documents, if any, as
the Financial Commissioner may, with the previous sanction of
the State Government prescribe.
(3) For the purpose of the preparation of the annual record, the C
Collector shall cause to be kept up by the patwari of each estate
a register of mutations and such other register as the Financial
Commissioner may prescribe.
xx xx xx
Section 45. Presumption in favour of entries in records-of- D
rights and [periodical] records. - An entry made in a record-
of-rights in accordance with the law for the time being in force, or
[periodical] record in accordance with the provisions of this
Chapter and the rules thereunder, shall be presumed to be true
until the contrary is proved or a new entry is lawfully substituted E
therefor:
Provided that notwithstanding anything contained in this
section any entry made, in the areas comprised in Himachal
Pradesh immediately before 1st November, 1966 [during the period
between the first day of April, 1948 and the first day of April, F
1956] in record-of-rights or in [a periodical] record where by the
land is shown as under self cultivation shall not be presumed to be
true.
Section 46. - Suit for declaratory decree by persons aggrieved
by an entry in a record. -if any person considers himself aggrieved
G
as to any right of which he is in possession by an entry in a record-
of-rights or in a [periodical] record, he may institute a suit for a
declaration of his right under Chapter VI of the Specified Relief
Act, 1963.”

H
702 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 1 S.C.R.

A 11. The High Court allowed the defendant’s appeal and held that
there is nothing on record to establish that the defendant was appointed
as a Manager and that he was not a tenant. The High Court held as
under:
“19. ……The plaintiffs have not brought on record any
B documentary evidence which demonstrates that the defendant
was managing the property of the plaintiffs as Manager and not
as a tenant. The plaintiffs have placed on record copies of
jamabandi, Ex.P-1 to P-4 and copies of khasra girdawari, Ex.P-5
to P-12, which depict that the suit land is in ownership and
possession of the plaintiffs. No doubt presumption of truth is
C attached to the copy of jamabandi, but this presumption is always
rebuttable.
xx xx xx
28. From the above, it stands fully established on record that the
D plaintiffs used to receive galla batai from the defendant for the
land measuring 13.2 bighas and the presumption of truth attached
to the revenue entries showing the plaintiff as owner -in-possession
of the said land stands rebutted. Even otherwise, also as far as
the possession of the defendant qua the suit land is concerned, it
is admitted by the plaintiff, but the case of plaintiff is that the
E defendant was his servant. At the same time, as has been observed
hereinabove, the plaintiff has failed to bring any document on
record with respect to the appointment of the defendant as a
servant, salary paid to him and conclusion is that the defendant
was a tenant of the plaintiff on the land to the extent of 13.2
F bighas.”
12. The presumption of truth attached to the Jamabandi was said
to be rebutted on the basis of a statement of original defendant Shiv
Ram (DW 1) who claims to be in possession of the suit land from last
15-16 years. He deposed that prior to him, Iqwal Ali (DW-2) was in
G possession of the suit land. Iqwal Ali (DW-2) deposed that he used to
cultivate the land prior to the defendant. Tulsi Ram (DW-5) and Gosaun
were stated to be the servants of plaintiff No. 1 and, in that capacity,
they used to collect the rent from the defendant for payment to the
plaintiff.

H
SHRI PARTAP SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ORS. v. 703
SHIV RAM (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]

13. The defendant also examined Lalita Chauhan (DW-8), A
Revenue Officer, who has produced the record of the revenue
proceedings relating to correction of the revenue entries. The High Court
relied upon the statements recorded in such revenue proceedings to hold
that in an inquiry conducted by Kanungo, pursuant to the application
moved by the defendant, there was a recommendation for correction of
B
the revenue record.
14. The record produced by Lalita Chauhan (DW-8) for correction
of Khasra Girdawari entries is not relevant and admissible before the
Civil Court. The proceedings before the Revenue Officer for correction
of revenue record are summary in nature. The statements recorded by
the Revenue Officer during the proceedings for correction of revenue C
record are not per se admissible in evidence. Maybe the evidence of the
witnesses could be used to confront the witness being a previous statement
if such a statement is made on oath. Therefore, the reference of
corrections of Khasra Girdawari proceedings is wholly unwarranted when
such entries are not proved to be incorrect. D
15. As per Section 32(2)(a) of the 1954 Act, record-of-rights, i.e.
Jamabandi, shall include the name of persons who are landowners, tenants
or assignees of land revenue and also the rent, land revenue, rates, cesses
or other payments due from and to each of those persons and to the
Government. On the other hand, the periodical record, i.e. Khasra E
Girdawari, as mentioned in Section 34 of the 1954 Act, is to be prepared
every year as the proof of the statements, as mentioned in sub-section
(2) clause (a) of Section 32, which includes the name of the landowners,
tenants and the rent and land revenue payable. In terms of Section 45 of
the 1954 Act, the record-of-rights as prepared in terms of Sections 32
and 34 of the 1954 Act carries a presumption of truth. Still further, any F
person who is aggrieved by any entry in the record-of-rights or in a
periodical record has a right to invoke the jurisdiction of the Civil Court
for correction of the entries in terms of Section 46 of the 1954 Act.
16. The detailed procedure for recording of periodical record-of-
rights as well as the record-of-rights in terms of Sections 32 & 34 of the G
1954 Act has been prescribed. The record-of-rights contains entries of
the revenue record for the four years. Such record-of-rights carries the
presumption of correctness in terms of Section 45 of the 1954 Act and
also Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, 18722. Section 109 of the
2 For short “the Evidence Act” H
704 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 1 S.C.R.

A Evidence Act further contemplates that whether there exists a relationship
of landowner and tenant and the burden of proving such a relationship is
on the person who affirms it. The relevant provisions of the Evidence
Act read as under:
“35. Relevancy of entry in public record or an electronic
B record made in performance of duty.—An entry in any public
or other official book, register or record or an electronic record,
stating a fact in issue or relevant fact, and made by a public servant
in the discharge of his official duty, or by any other person in
performance of a duty specially enjoined by the law of the country
in which such book, register, or record or an electronic record is
C kept, is itself a relevant fact.
xx xx xx
109. Burden of Proof as to relationship in the cases of
partners, landlord and tenant, principal and agent.- When
D the question is whether persons are partners, landlord and tenant,
or principal and agent, and it has been shown that they have been
acting as such, the burden of proving that they do not stand, or
have ceased to stand, to each other in those relationships
respectively, is on the person who affirms it.”

E 17. In the State of Himachal Pradesh, Jamabandi, under Section
32 of the 1954 Act as well as Khasra Girdawari, under Section 34 of
1954 Act, both are record-of-rights in terms of Section 32 of the 1954
Act, and have statutory presumption of truth. How that presumption can
be inferred has come up for consideration before this Court in Harish
Chander and Others v. Ghisa Ram and Another3.This Court held
F that the entries in the Jamabandi carry presumption of truth but such
presumption is rebuttable. Once that presumption is raised, still another
comes to the aid of respondent No. 1 by reason of the rule contained in
Section 109 of the Evidence Act, namely, that when two persons have
been shown to stand to each other in the relationship of landlord and
G tenant, the burden of proving that such relationship has ceased, is on the
party who so asserts. It was held as under:
“2. ……Apart from the oral evidence there is no material on the
record which may indicate the falsity of any of the entries in the

H
3 (1981) 1 SCC 431
SHRI PARTAP SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ORS. v. 705
SHIV RAM (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]

revenue records and we are of the opinion that the lower courts A
were fully justified in relying on them.
xxx xxx xxx
6. No suspicion can attach to the entries in the Jamabandi for the
year 1959-60, nor have the contents of that document been assailed
before us. A presumption of truth attaches to those entries in view B
of the provisions of Section 44 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act.
That presumption is no doubt rebuttable but no attempt has been
made to displace it. Further, once that presumption is raised, still
another comes to the aid of Respondent 1 by reason of the rule
contained in Section 109 of the Indian Evidence Act, namely, that C
when two persons have been shown to stand to each other in the
relationship of landlord and tenant, the burden of proving that such
relationship has ceased, is on the party who so asserts. It may
therefore be legitimately presumed that the plaintiff continued to
possess the land as a tenant till the institution of the suit.”
D
18. The present is a case where no relationship of landlord and
tenant is mentioned in the revenue record though required in terms of
Section 32(2)(a) of 1954 Act. In the absence of entry in the revenue
record, which is also expected to contain the entry of rent and possession,
the tenancy cannot be treated to be in existence only on the basis of oral
evidence of the witnesses examined by the defendant. The burden of E
proving the relationship was on the defendant. Such burden cannot be
said to be rebutted only by oral evidence. The witnesses may lie but the
documents do not, is a golden rule. The presumption of truth attached to
the revenue record can be rebutted only on the basis of evidence of
impeccable integrity and reliability. The oral evidence can always be F
adduced contrary to the revenue record but such oral testimony will not
be sufficient to hold that the statutory presumption stands rebutted.
19. This Court in Vishwa Vijai Bharti v. Fakhrul Hasan & Ors.4
held that the entries in the revenue record ought to be generally accepted
at their face value and courts should not embark upon an appellate inquiry G
into their correctness. But the presumption of correctness can apply
only to genuine, not forged or fraudulent entries. This Court held as
under:

4 (1976) 3 SCC 642 H
706 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 1 S.C.R.

A “14. It is true that the entries in the revenue record ought, generally,
to be accepted at their face value and courts should not embark
upon an appellate inquiry in to their correctness. But the
presumption of correctness can apply only to genuine, not forged
or fraudulent, entries. The distinction may be fine but it is real.
The distinction is that one cannot challenge the correctness of
B
what the entry is the revenue record states but the entry is open
to the attack that it was Made fraudulently or surreptitiously. Fraud
and forgery rob a document of all its legal effect and cannot found
a claim to possessory title.”
20. This Court in a judgment reported as Guru Amarjit Singh v.
C Rattan Chand and Others5 was examining a dispute of relationship of
landlord and tenant. A copy of more than thirty years old lease deed was
produced to prove the relationship between landowner and tenant.
However, the revenue record did not show any payment of rent but only
existence of terms of lease to pay rent. This Court held that non-
D production of the receipts of payment of rent clearly indicates that there
was no relationship between landlord and tenants.
21. In a judgment reported as Sodhi Transport Co. and Others
v. State of U.P. and Others6, this Court was considering Section 28-B
of the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act, 1948 which raises a presumption of
E sale of goods in a manner prescribed therein. This Court considered
Section 4 of the Evidence Act and also the previous judgments and held
as under:
“14. A presumption is not in itself evidence but only makes a
prima facie case for party in whose favour it exists. It is a rule
F concerning evidence. It indicates the person on whom the burden
of proof lies. When presumption is conclusive, it obviates the
production of any other evidence to dislodge the conclusion to be
drawn on proof of certain facts. But when it is rebuttable it only
points out the party on whom lies the duty of going forward with
evidence on the fact presumed, and when that party has produced
G evidence fairly and reasonably tending to show that the real fact
is not as presumed the purpose of presumption is over. Then the
evidence will determine the true nature of the fact to be established.
The rules of presumption are deduced from enlightened human
5
AIR 1994 SC 227
H
6 (1986) 2 SCC 486
SHRI PARTAP SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ORS. v. 707
SHIV RAM (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]

knowledge and experience and are drawn from the connection, A
relation and coincidence of facts, and circumstances.”
22. In another judgment reported as Kumar Exports v. Sharma
Carpets7, this Court examined the presumption of fact in proceedings
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. It was held
that bare denial of the passing of the consideration and existence of B
debt, apparently would not serve the purpose of the accused. Something
which is probable has to be brought on record for getting the burden of
proof shifted to the complainant. It was held as under:
“21. The accused has also an option to prove the non-existence
of consideration and debt or liability either by letting in evidence C
or in some clear and exceptional cases, from the case set out by
the complainant, that is, the averments in the complaint, the case
set out in the statutory notice and evidence adduced by the
complainant during the trial. Once such rebuttal evidence is
adduced and accepted by the court, having regard to all the
circumstances of the case and the preponderance of probabilities, D
the evidential burden shifts back to the complainant and, thereafter,
the presumptions under Section 118 and 139 of the Act will not
again come to the complainant’s rescue.”
23. The presumption of truth attached to the revenue record can
be rebutted if such entry was made fraudulently or surreptitiously (Vishwa E
Vijai Bharti’s case) or where such entry has not been made by following
the prescribed procedure (Bhimappa Channappa Kapali (Dead) by
LRS. v. Bhimappa Satyappa Kamagouda (Dead) by LRS. and
Others8). Even in Guru Amarjit Singh, where thirty years old lease
deed was produced, this Court had not accepted the proof of the
relationship between landowner and tenant in absence of receipt of F
payment of rent.
24. Therefore, we find that the presumption of truth attached to
the record-of-rights can be rebutted only if there is a fraud in the entry
or the entry was surreptitiously made or that prescribed procedure was
not followed. It will not be proper to rely on the oral evidence to rebut G
the statutory presumption as the credibility of oral evidence vis-a-vis
documentary evidence is at a much weaker level.

7 (2009) 2 SCC 513
8 (2012) 13 SCC 759 H
708 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 1 S.C.R.

A 25. In view thereof, we find that the High Court has erred in law
in allowing the defendant’s appeal relying upon oral evidence to rebut
the statutory presumption of truth attached to the revenue record. The
onus of proof was placed on the defendant by the learned trial court.
The burden is on the person who asserts such a relationship as per
Section 109 of the Evidence Act. The defendant has failed to rebut the
B
presumption of truth on the basis of reliable, trustworthy and cogent
documentary evidence to prove the relationship of a tenant.
26. Consequently, the order of the High Court is set aside and the
judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court is affirmed.
The appeal is allowed.
C

Nidhi Jain Appeal allowed.

D

E

F

G

H