In the absence of entry in the revenue record, which is 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 Supreme Court in the matter of Shri Partap Singh vs Shiv Ram (Civil Appeal No. 1511 of 2020) decided on 20.02.20 held that although 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 witnesses may lie but the documents do not, is a golden rule.
FACTS
The suit was filed by plaintiffs claiming to be the owner of land and that they had been getting the property managed through various 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 plaintiffs allege that there was misfeasance by the defendant, therefore, they terminated the agency and asked him to hand over the charge of the properties. In view of the said assertion, the suit for a permanent injunction, mandatory injunction and for possession of land. In the written statement, the defendant asserted that he is a tenant and that suit is exclusively triable by the Revenue Court.
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.
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.
ISSUE
“Whether there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties as alleged. If so, regarding what property?”
HELD
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 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 adduced contrary to the revenue record but such oral testimony will not be sufficient to hold that the statutory presumption stands rebutted.
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. 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.
In Harish Chander and Others v. Ghisa Ram and Another this Court held 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 tenant, the burden of proving that such relationship has ceased, is on the party who so asserts. The presumption of truth attached to the revenue record can be rebutted if such entry was made fraudulently or surreptitiously (Vishwa 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 Others). 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 payment of rent.
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.