In Brief
The plaintiffs sought to reclaim property claimed to have been placed under the defendant's management. The defendant asserted he was a tenant. Revenue records (Jamabandi and Khasra Girdawari) showed the plaintiffs as owners with no mention of tenancy. The High Court accepted the defendant's oral evidence to override the statutory presumption of truth in the revenue records, allowing his appeal and dismissing the suit for permanent injunction and possession. The Supreme Court reversed this, holding that oral evidence alone cannot rebut the statutory presumption of truth in revenue records under Section 45 of the Himachal Land Revenue Act, 1954. Such presumptions can be rebutted only by evidence of fraud, surreptitious entry, or procedural non-compliance. The defendant, bearing the burden of proving tenancy under Section 109 of the Evidence Act, failed to adduce reliable documentary evidence. The Court affirmed the First Appellate Court's judgment, allowing the appeal for possession and permanent injunction."
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.