(A) HP Land Revenue Act, 1954 Section 32 – Revenue Entries – Rebuttal by oral evidence – The entries in the revenue record could not have been rebutted by the oral evidence (Para 25)
(B) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 74, 77 – Public Document – Examining the author – A duly certified copy of ‘Rapat Rojnamcha’ as maintained by the Patwari, is public document and admissible in evidence in view of Section 77 of the Evidence Act. No need to examining the author. (Para 19)
(C) Limitation – Starting Points – The revenue entries were changed in the year 1944 and the suit was filed in the year 1993 – Held: Mere adverse entry will not have the effect of commencement of limitation and the cause of action will accrue to the plaintiffs from the date when the rights of the plaintiffs are actually invaded. (Para 34)
(D) Adverse inference – When not made out – First Appellate Court held that the defendant did not appear in the witness box and examined his Power of Attorney and took the non-examination of the defendant as an adverse inference. Held: The present case was based on the revenue record and the sale deed. Learned First Appellate Court has not shown that any fact was within the exclusive knowledge of the defendant for which his appearance is necessary. The claim of defendant could not be rejected on this ground. (Para 40, 43)
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
2023 STPL(Web) 176 HP
Rikhi Ram (Deceased) Through Lrs & Others Vs. Dhannu Alias Prem Dass (Deceased) Through Lrs & Others
RSA No.532 of 2005-Decided on 16-09-2023
https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/2023-STPLWeb-176-HP.pdf
