,

.. ..: /-
/

..

... /

:. ,
/
/

--

,
- -
. .. /-
.
. .

.
.
.
.

.

. WP t GRU J Az E JA U UP

vUzPP v Czg v Eg P jUt U i AiiAi

UAz.

Sri P. Govindaswamy vs T. Devaraj ILR 1997 KAR 1486

There is no dispute with regard to the legal position as canvassed by the

respondents learned advocate, Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Reforms
Act does envisage that entires have presumptive value. For that however, it is
necessary for a Court to scrutinise the surrounding circumstances namely
two important factors, firstly the length of time during which the entry has
been on record, the circumstances under which the entry came to be made
and more importantly, the question as to whether there is a subsisting

dispute with regard to the correctness of that entry. A Court is not required
to mechanically accept whatever the revenue authorities have put down
there particularly having regard to the manner in which these entries are
made and the manner in which they are changed. In this background, what
one needs to take serious note of is the fact that the entires in this case
happen to be in the name of the plaintiff for almost 15 years after the
partition has taken place. It would be a little difficult to accept even prima
facie that during this long period of time the respondent was unaware of this
fact.

. Apex Court in the case of Thiru John, V. Subrahamanyan

v. The Returning Officer and Ors. , AIR 1977 SC 1724 wherein it is

observed thus: It is well settled that a party's admission as defined in
Sections 17 to 20 fulfilling the requirements of Section 21. Evidence Act, is
substantive evidence proprio vigore. An admission, if clearly and
unequivocally made, is the best evidence against the party making it and
though not conclusive, shifts the onus on to the maker on the principle that
"what a party himself admits to be true my reasonably be presumed to be so
and until the presumption was rebutted the fact admitted must be taken to
be established. ..

.

. In C.N. Nagendra Singh vs The Special Deputy Commissioner

And Ors.

(ILR 2002 KAR 2750) The Honble High court of Karnataka Held

that : The decision of the Revenue Courts has to be necessarily based on the
undisputed facts.

.
. Vishwa Vijai Bharti vs

Fakhrul Hasan & Ors AIR 1976 SC 1485 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.

.
.

Janardhanam Prasad vs Ramdas 2007 (2 ) SCR 151 Possession of the

suit land by the appellant also stands admitted. Registration of a document as
well as possession would constitute notice, as is evident from Section 3 of the
Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which is in the following terms : "...."a person
is said to have notice" of a fact when he actually knows that fact, or when, but
for wilful abstention from an enquiry or search which he ought to have made,
or gross negligence, he would have known it Explanaion I. Where any
transaction relating to immovable property is required by law to be and has
been effected by a registered instrument, any person acquiring such property
or any part of, or share or interest in, such property shall be deemed to have
notice of such instrument as from the date of registration.

. Honble High Court of Karnataka in the case of

Patel Doddakempegowda v. Chikkeeregowda ILR 1986 KAR 2404 has

considered the scope and object of Section 142 of 'the Act' and as held thus:
Maintenance of the boundaries of lands and sub-division of lands is
exclusively the field of the Revenue Department as is clear from the
provisions in Chapter XII of the Act. It is exactly in this Chapter Section 140
appears. In this connection, Section 140(2) and Section 142 of the Act may be
read with advantage. Sub-section (2) of Section 140 empowers the Tahsildar
to dscide the dispute concerning the boundary of a holding which has not
been surveyed or when a dispute arises at any time after the completion of a
survey. What is noteworthy in this provision is that the dispute relates to the

boundary and not to any encroachment. Section 142(2) clarifies with more
lucidity the further power exercisable by the Tahsildar under Section 140(2)
of the Act, After the Tahsildar decides the dispute concerning the boundary
under Section 140(2) of the Act, he has further the power to summarily evict
any land holder who happens to be wrongfully in possession of any land
which has been adjudged in the settlement of a boundary.

: --
:


,
.. ..: /-
/

..

... /

- /

- /

.. /-

:- --

: --
: