Find a Lawyer

Revision No. 6 of 1963‑64, decided on 9th March 1965.

-----S. 44‑Presumption of correctness as to entries in revenue records‑Successfully rebutted by existence of civil Court's compromise decree which, though not executed, was acted upon by parties on the spot but not carried out by mutation in revenue record‑Order of three Revenue Officers below holding that relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist between parties, not interfered with in Second Revision by Board.

Faqir Hussain for Petitioners.

Ferozaddin for Respondent.

This is a second revision filed against an order dated the 11th of December 1963, passed by the Additional Commissioner,

Lahore, whereby the revision preferred by the petitioners was rejected.

The facts of the case are that the land in dispute comprises 63 kanals and 17 marlas out of a total area of 94 kanals and 17 marlas. There was litigation between the predecessors‑in interest of the parties and several transactions were involved. Ultimately a compromise decree was given on 17‑4‑1935 by virtue of which 2/3rd of 94 kanals and 17 marlas went to the father of the respondent and 1/3rd was given to the petitioners' father. The parties were put in possession of the shares mentioned above. Subsequently, the petitioners, through their Mukhtar Khas, brought a suit of rent for Rabi 1961 and Kharif 1961. The Assistant Collector, IInd Grade held that the relationship of landlord and tenants, in the light of the history given above did not exist between the parties and dismissed the suit. The petitioners went in appeal to the Collector but it was dismissed. They then filed a revision before the Additional Commissioner but it was also rejected. Hence this second revision.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the decree was given in 1935 and it has not so far been executed. I am afraid I cannot agree with this contention. The respondent filed suit for possession which ended in a compromise decree and afterwards the parties occupied the portions which had fallen to their respective shares. There can, therefore, be no question of getting the decree executed.

The learned counsel for the petitioner also stated that the revenue entries were not changed in accordance with the civil decree. It appears that the parties got possession of their respective shares and did not consider it worth while to have the revenue entries corrected. This is supported by the fact that even now the petitioners are not claiming the shares of the produce for the entire area of 94 kanals and 17 marlas but only in respect of 2/3rd of that area.

It is true that the revenue entries are in favour of the petitioners but the presumption attached to them has been successfully rebutted by the existence of a compromise decree and the action that followed it.

In these circumstances, I see no justification for any inter ference with the concurrent findings of the three revenue authorities below. The second revision fails and is dismissed hereby.

A. H. Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.