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

Popular posts from this blog

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

DVC CASE - Practice & Procedure - Magistrate shall issue a notice of the date of hearing fixed under Sec.12-the Magistrate need not, nay shall not issue warrant for securing presence of respondent - the Court need not insist for personal attendance of the parties for each adjournment like in criminal cases.-if the respondents failed to turn up after receiving notice and file their counter affidavit if any,pass an exparte order by virtue of the power conferred on him under Sec.23 of the D.V.Act.-only under exceptional circumstances, if the Magistrate feels required, he may issue warrants for securing the presence of the concerned party. -2015 A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS( Telegana)

Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 read with Rule 9(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Rules of 1989. - Powers of Revenue Court - Petitioners are the legal heirs of Late Sri A. Penta Reddy and respondents 1 to 3 are the brothers of Penta Reddy - Petitioners claimed as Separate Property - Brothers/Respondents claimed as Joint family Property - MRO held summary enquiry and held that it is Joint family Property - No Appeal to RDO - after the lapse of 12 years filed Revision directly to Joint Collector - JC. dismissed the revision - this Writ - Their Lordships held that in the absence of any suit for Declaration of title after receiving Rule 9 notice with in 3 months, the MRO can decide the dispute summarily - since no appeal is filed nor any suit is filed in any court - the orders of MRO can not be challanged after the lapse of 12 years - dismissed the revision - -2015 Telangana & A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS