Sec.74 of Indian Evidence Act - Presumption of Assignment of Patta infavour of plaintiff in the year 1977- Not Un-Rebuttable -Merely because presumption has to be drawn under Section 74 of the Act that does not prevent the court from taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case and to draw conclusions which rebut the initial presumption. - admittedly the father of the plaintiff has got patta lands - admittedly the plaintiff was minor - admittedly no Cists receipt filed from 1977 - admittedly his sister is the village Officer who issued certificates Ex.A1 to A4 - admittedly she was not examined - admittedly the plaintiff is a APSRTC conductor - admittedly obtained all these certificates just before filing of the suit - No Govt. Patta would be assigned to minor, employee and sufficient land holders - Before taking presumption the lower court rightly took all these facts in to consideration and rightly rejected to take the presumption under sec.74 of Evidence Act - 2015 A.P.(2014) MSKLAWREPORTS.
Section 74 of the Evidence Act - presumption towards the acts of the officials who
issued Exs.A1 to A4. - It is settled law that presumption has to be drawn under
Section 74 of the Act with regard to the public documents. - does not mean that such presumption is unrebuttable. - mere marking of a document as an exhibit does not dispense with its proof. Admittedly, sister of the plaintiff, who issued Exs.A1 to A4 was not examined. -No person
examined to prove Exs.A1 to A4. - Admittedly, Exs.A1 to A4 were issued by the sister of the plaintiff who was working as Village Secretary, that too just before filing the suit. The Courts below observed that the appellant would not have kept quite without paying cist if at all assignment in his favour in 1977 is true - An entry in Revenue record is open to the attack that it was made fraudulently. - The Courts have to appreciate the evidence and draw logical conclusions. - While drawing local conclusions, all the relevant facts have to be taken into consideration. - All the facts and circumstances, under which the relevant documents came into existence should be considered. -Whether the case put forth by a party is probable or not has to be carefully examined. - As far as
appreciation of evidence on record is concerned, the Courts have to draw logical conclusions on the basis of evidence on record i.e., on proper appreciation of evidence. - The fact that the father of the plaintiff had patta land and the plaintiff was only 15 years old in 1977 makes it clear that there was no possibility of assigning land to the plaintiff who was a minor in 1977. - The Courts below were also justified in finding that the plaintiff failed to file any documents such as cist receipts or adangals from 1977 till the date of issuing Exs.A1 to A4 which were admittedly obtained by the plaintiff just before filing of the suit. - It is also not in dispute that the plaintiff has been working as a Conductor in APSRTC and he is not entitled for assignment of land. - All these circumstances go to show that the conclusions reached by the Courts below are justified. - Merely because presumption has to be drawn under Section 74 of the Act that does not prevent the court from taking into consideration all
the facts and circumstances of the case and to draw conclusions which rebut the initial presumption. I do not see any reason to hold any substantial question of law, for consideration in this Second Appeal. -2015 A.P.(2014)MSKLAWREPORTS