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

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.