Supreme Court of India
TIKKA RAM & ANR.versusKARTARA (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS & ORS.
- Citation
- 2008 INSC 671
- Decided
- 14 May 2008
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- ARIJIT PASAYAT
Holding
The plaintiffs were not tenants as they failed to produce any documentary evidence of tenancy, and oral evidence and FIR statements were insufficient.
Summary
The plaintiffs, Tikka Ram and Sewa Ram, claimed to be tenants of a 40-kanal land for 12‑13 years and filed suits for pre‑emption against the vendor who had sold the land to the defendants. The trial court dismissed the suits; the first appellate court reversed the decision, but the High Court set aside that reversal and dismissed the appeals. The Supreme Court examined whether the plaintiffs could be established as tenants in the absence of a lease deed, rent receipts, or any entry in revenue records, relying only on oral testimony of neighbours, a statement in an FIR, and a counsel's remark. The Court held that a bald statement in an FIR is not substantive evidence in a civil proceeding and that oral evidence without documentary support cannot establish tenancy. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, affirming the High Court's decision.
Issues considered
- Whether the plaintiffs can be held to be tenants of the suit land based on the evidence presented.
- Whether a statement made in an FIR can be considered substantive evidence to prove tenancy in civil proceedings.
- Whether oral testimony of neighbours is sufficient in the absence of documentary proof such as lease deed or rent receipts.
Subjects
tenancypre-emptionlease deedrent receiptoral evidenceFIRrevenue recordscivil procedureproperty law
Judgment
[2008] B"S.C.R. 719
TIKKA RAM & ANR. A
v.
KARTARA (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No.6590 Of 2005)
14 MAY, 2008
B
(DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P.SATHASIVAM, JJ.]
Tenancy rights - Pre-emption - Suit for pre-emption
claiming superior rights on the ground that plaintiffs were ten-
ants for 12-13 years - Maintainability of - Held: Not maintain- c
able as no lease deed or receipt of payment of rent put on
record - Bald statement made by Vendor in an FIR that plain-
tiffs were tenants would not be relevant for deciding issue of
tenancy in civil proceedings - Oral evidence of neighbours,
in the absence of documentary proof would not have value.
D
The Defendant No.1-Vendor sold the suit lands to de-
fendant no. 2 and 3. The appellant$ filed suits for pre·
emption and possession claiming their superior right on
the ground that they were tenants for 12-13 years. The
suits were dismissed. Plaintiff-preemptors filed appeal E
which was allowed by the First Appellate Court. The ap-
peal by vendees, was allowed by High Court.
The question for consideration in these appeals is
whether appellants-plaintiff could be held to be the ten-
ants based on the evidence and materials on record. The F
appellants relied on the oral evidence of PW9, PW10 and
PW11, neighbours. In addition to the same, they also re-
lied on the specific statement made by the vendor in the
complaint (FIR) to the police to the effect that the plain·
• tiffs were in possession of the suit lands as tenants . G
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.Though the appellants-plaintiffs have
claimed their possession as tenants for the last 12-15
719 H
720 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 8 S.C.R.
A years, admittedly, no pattanama (lease deed) has been
produced. There is no explanation at all as to why no
pattanama has ever been executed. There was no receipt
of payment batai for any of the year though they claimed
that they.were in possession of the land for more than 12-
8 15 years. Further, the records show that the change of
Khasra Girdhawaris was made only in the year 1978
showing their possession as tenants from Kharif 1976 to
Rabi 1978 and the said order was passed by the Assis-
tant Collector llnd Grade on 11.07.1979. Since the said
c order came to be passed without notice to anyone includ-
ing the vendor admittedly the order of the Assistant Col-
lector effecting changes in Khasra Girdhawaris was set
aside by the Collector and the case has been remanded
for taking fresh decision. No further change has been ef-
D fected in the revenue records by the authority concerned.
It is clear that though Khasra Girdhawaris were corrected
for the first time in the year 1978 ;n view of the fact that the
same was set aside by the higher authority and in the ab-
sence of any subsequent order no importance need be
given for the same. [Para 10] [725-C-G]
E
Jagadeesh &Anr. v. State of Kamataka & Ors. JT 2 OO8
(2) SC 308 - relied on.
2.. The High Court rightly held that a bald statement
in a complaint to the police in respect of certain incident
F is not a relevant factor for deciding the issue of tenancy
in a civil proceeding. At the most, it can only be used for
corroborating or contradicting its maker when he appears
in court as a witness. The FIR was given by a person aged
about 2.0/22 years. It further shows that at that time he was
G studying in B.A. 1st year. In the whole of the complaint, he
made only one solitary statement stating that "this land
•
was under the tenancy of appellant". Except the above
reference, there were no other details such as when ap-
pellant was inducted as tenant, extent of land etc. In such
H circumstances, in the absence·of any other corrobora-
TIKKA RAM & ANR. v. KARTARA (DECEASED) 721
THROUGH LRS & ORS. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
tive evidence, reference in the FIR can never be treated A
as a substantive piece of evidence in a civil proceeding.
[Para 12] [727-A,B,C]
3. The contention that the counsel of vendees had
made a statement on 13.06.1979 to the effect that the vend-
ees would not dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit land B
except in due course of law, which amounted to his ad-
mission that the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit
land on the date of sale of the land to the vendees is re-
jected. High Court rightly held that from the statement of
the counsel, it cannot be construed that the parties have C
admitted the status of the plaintiffs as tenants under the
vendor. Though the appellants heavily relied on the evi-
dence of P.W. 9, P.W. 10 and P.W. 11 - neighbours, in the
absence of any documentary evidence, such as entries
-· in the revenue records, lease deed, rent receipt etc. no D
credence would be given to their oral evidence. In fact,
the statement of P.W.9 who claims to be a Lumberdar runs
counter to the revenue records. [Para 13, 14] [727-D-H]
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6590 E
of 2005
From the final Judgment and Order dated 23.4.2004 of
the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in R.S.A.
No. 2709 of 1984
WITH F
C.A. No. 6591 of 2005
Vijay Hansaria, Sneha Kalita and Balbir Singh Gupta for
the Appellants.
G
Manoj Swarup, Preetika Dwivedi, Rohit Sohgaura and
Yugant R. Marlappalle for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
P. SATHASIVAM, J. I. C.A. No. 6590 of 2005
H
722 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 8 S.C.R.
A 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order
dated 23.4.2004 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at
Chandigarh in R.S.A. No. 2709 of 1984 whereby the High Court
allowed the appeal filed by respondent Nos. 1 & 2 herein.
Brief facts:
B
2. Smt.Kishni - Defendant No.1 /vendor (RespondentNo.3
herein) sold the land measuring 40 Kanals situated in village
Gudha, Tehsil and Dist. Karnalby executing registered sale deed
in favour of Kartara -vendee/defendant No.2 (respqndent No.1
c herein) and Surta - defendant No.3 (respondent No.2 herein), ~.
for a sale consideration of Rs.67,000/-. Tikka Ramand Sewa
Ram, appellants herein, claimed themselves to be tenants un-
der the vendor for the last about 12-13 years over the suit land
and challenged the sale thereof in favour of defendant Nos. 2 &
3 by filing suit for pre-emption claiming their superior right to >·
D
purchase the suit property. ·1n the suit, Smt. Kishni, Kartara and
Surta were arrayed as defendants. Kartara and Surta, respon-
dents 1 & 2 herein, contested the suit on the ground that the
sale has. been effected by a female and, therefore, is not pre-
emptible under Section 15(2) ·Of the Punjab Pre-emption Act.
E On 22.1.1983, the sub-Judge 1st Class, Karnal dismissed the
suit. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiffs/pre-emptors filed Civil
Appeal No..
33/13 of 1983 in the Court of Additional District
' .· .
Judge; t<arnal. By order dated 22.9.1984, the first ~ppellate }.
Court allowed the appeal and reversed the judgment and de-
F cree dated 22.1.1983 of the sub-Judge, First Class, Karnal.
Against the said order, the Vendees/respondent Nos. 1 & 2
herein filed R.S.A. No. 2709 of 1984 in the High Court. The
High Court, by order dated 23.4.2004, allowed the appeal and
set aside the order dated 22.9.1984 passed by the Additional
G District Judge, Kamal. Questioning the said order, the plain-
tiffs/pre-emptors have filed this appeal by way of special leave.
II. C.A. 6591 of 2005
3. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order
H dated 23.4.2004 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at
TIKKA RAM & ANR. v. KARTARA (DECEASED) 723
THROUGH LRS & ORS. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
""'
Chandigarh in RS.A. No. 2710of1984 whereby the High Court A
allowed the appeal filed by the vendees/respondents herein.
Brief facts:
4. Smt. Krishni sold 45 Kanals 2 Marlas of suit land situ-
· 'ated in village Gudha, Tehsil & Dist. Kamal to Phool Singh for a B
sale consideration of Rs.67,000/-. Out of 45 Kanals 2 Marlas,
' Tikka Ram and Sewa Ram are the tenants of 2 Kanals 1 Marla
and of the remaining 43 Kanals 1 Marla, the appellants herein
are tenants. The tenants filed suit for possession by way of pre-
emption against the vendor and the vendees. On 22 .1.1983, c
the trial Court dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the said judg-
ment, the appellants herein filed C.A. No. 39/13of1983 in the
Court of Additional District Judge, Kamal and the same was
partially allowed in favour of appellants 1 & 2 (Pre-emptors) and
~ against respondents 2-5 (vendees) on 22.9.1984. Question-
D
ing the said order, the vendees/defendants filed RS.A. No. 2710
of 1984 in the High Court. The High Court allowed the appeal
on 23.4.2004. Against the said order, the appE;!llants have filed
this appeal by way of special leave.
5. Since common questions of law and facts arose in both E
the appeals, they were heard together and are being disposed
of by this common judgment.
6 . Heard Mr. Vijay Hansaria, learned senior counsel ap-
pearing for the appellants and Mr. Manoj Swarup, learned coun-
sel appearing for the respondents. F
7. The only point for consideration in both the appeals is
whether the appellants/plaintiffs could be held to be the tenants
based on the evidence and materials on record?
8. Tikka Ram and Sewa Ram sons of Matu are appellants G
in Civil Appeal No. 6590/2005 and the legal representatives of
Shivla s/o Shiva and the legal representatives of Devita s/o
Nanha are the appellants in C.A. No. 6591 of 2005. When Smt.
Kishni - Vendor, sold the land measuring 40 kanals situated in
village Gudha, Tehsil and District Kamal by executing a regis- H
724 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 8 S.C.R.
A tered sale deed in favour of Kartara - vendee/defendant No.2
""
and Surta - defendant No.3 for a consideration of Rs.67,000/-
, Tikka Ram and Sewa Ram, appellants in Civil Appeal No. 6590
of 2005 claiming as tenants under the vendor/defendant No.1
for the last about 12 or 13 years over the suit land challenged
B the sale in favour of defendant Nos. 2 and 3 by filing a suit for
pre-emption claiming their superior right to purchase the suit
property. The very same vendor, namely, Kishni sold 45 kanals
and 2 marlas situated in village Gudha, tehsil and District Kamal
to one Phool Singh (respondent No.1 in C.A.No.6591/2005).
c Out of 45 kanals and 2 marlas, the said Tikka Ram and Sewa
Ram claimed, as tenants, of two kanals and one maria and the
other two appellants, namely, Shivla and Devtia claimed in re-
spect of remaining 43 kanals and one maria as tenants. In the
same way, all the four filed a suit claiming superior right of pre-
emption being tenant. Though both the suits, appeals and·sec-
D ~
ond appeals were disposed of separately and without refer-
ence to each other, it is not in dispute that the issues are com-
mon and identical.
9. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants/
E plaintiffs after taking us through the entire materials mainly con-
tended that the Khasra Girdhawaris were changed in the rev-
enue records by the patwari. According to him, since the rev-
enue records contain the name of the appellants in respect of
the suit lands, the first Appellate Court rightly accepted their case ._
F and the High Court committed an error in setting aside the same.
The appellants also heavily relied on the oral evidence of P.W.9
Lumberdar, P.W. 10 and P.W. 11 - neighbours, in their evidence
they asserted that the appellants are in possession of the suit
land as tenants. In addition to the same, the appellants also
relied on the specific statement made by the vendor in the com-
G
plaint (FIR) to the police to the effect that the plaintiffs are in
possession of the suit lands as tenants. The appellants finally
relied on the statement of counsel for the vendors, namely, Mr.
Malhotra to show that the appellants were in possession and
are continuing the suit lands as tenants. On the other hand,
H
TIKKA RAM & ANR. v. KARTARA (DECEASED) 725
THROUGH LRS & ORS. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that A
first of all the entry in the revenue records which was made be-
hind the vendor in the year 1978 was cancelled by the Collec-
tor. He further submitted that in the absence of any documen-
tary evidence with regard to payment of rent, receipt etc. the
appellants claim that they are tenants of the suit land cannot be B
accepted. He also submitted that a mere reference in the FIR
to the police and the statement of a counsel are not relevant
material to prove their case that they were in possession of the
land and are continuing as tenants.
10. Since all the above contentions are interconnected, C
they are being considered in the following paras. First, we have
to see whether correction of Khasra Girdhawaris was made by
adopting the correct procedure in accordance with the stand-
ing instruction of the Financial Commissioner. Though the plain-
tiffs have claimed their possession as tenants for the last 12-15 D
years admittedly no pattanama (lease deed) has been pro-
duced. There is no explanation at all as to why no pattanama
has been ever got executed. No receipt of payment batai for
any of the year though the claim that they were in possession of
the land for more than 12-15 years. Further, the records show E
that the change of Khasra Girdhawaris was made only in the
year 1978 showing their possession as tenants from Kharif
1976 to Rabi 1978 and the said order was passed by the As-
sistant Collector llnd Grade on 11.07.1979. Since the said or-
der came to be passed without notice to anyone including the F
vendor admittedly the order of the Assistant Collector effecting
changes in Khasra Girdhawaris was set aside by the Collector
and the case has been remanded for taking fresh decision. It is
brought to our notice that no further change has been effected
in the revenue records by the authority concerned. It is clear G
that though Khasra Girdhawaris were corrected for the first time
in the year 1978 in view of the fact that the same was set aside
by the higher authority and in the absence of any subsequent
order no importance need be given for the same.
11. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the re- H
726 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 8 S.C.R.
A spondents though the appellants claimed that they were in pos-
session of the suit lands nearly for a period of 12-15 years prior
to the filing of the suit as tenants admittedly there is no evidence
of execution of lease deed or payment of rent at any point of
time. In the absence of execution of a proper pattanama (lease
B deed) and payment of rent their claim that they are tlie tenants
of the suit land cannot be accepted. It is useful to refer to the
recent decision of this Court reported in Jagadeesh & Anr. vs.
State of Kamataka & Ors., JT 2008 (2) SC 308 while consider-
ing similar claim as to the tenancy, this Court held:
C "11. We have already noted the findings made by the High
Court in the impugned judgment on the question whether
the appellants could be held to be the tenants on the
evidence and materials on record. While doing so, in our
view, the High Court was justified in coming to the .,.
D conclusion that the evidence and material on record would
clearly establish that the appellants were not able to prove·
that they were the tenants in respect of the scheduled land
under the respondents. One of the main criteria for deciding
whether a particular person is a tenant or not is to see
E whether there was payment of rent, either in cash or in
kind. In this case, while rejecting the claim of the appellants,
the High Court had considered that the appellants had
failed to satisfy the court that any payment of rent was
made either by the father of the appellants or by the
F appellants themselves."
While agreeing with the said view, we reiterate that pay-
ment of rent or lease amount either in cash or in kind is one of
the relevant criteria for deciding whether a person is a tenant
. or not. (Emphasis supplied) Neither lease deed nor payment
G of rent was substantiated in these cases. In the absence of any
such material and really if they were tenants for 12-15 years
prior to filing of suit they would have taken steps much earlier
and got Khasra Girdhawaris changed.
.H 12. Coming to the claim based on the statement made in
TIKKA RAM & ANR. v. KARTARA (DECEASED) 727
THROUGH LRS & ORS. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
the FIR, first of all as rightly observed by the High Court a bald A
"" statement in a complaint to the police in respect of certain inci- .
dent is not a relevant factor for deciding the issue of tenancy in
a civil proceeding. At the most it can only be used for corrobo-
rating or contradicting its maker when he appears in court as a
witness. The FIR marked as Exh. P.W.9/A was given by one B
Premsingh son of Kartar Singh aged about 20/22 years. It fur-
... ther shows that at that time he was studying in B.A. 1st year S.D .
College, Panipat. In the whole of the complaint, he made only
one solitary statement stating that "this land was under the ten-
ancy ofTikka son of Matu .... "Except the above reference, there c
are no other details such as when the said Tikka was inducted
as tenant, extent of land etc. In such circumstances, in the ab-
sence of any other corroborative evidence, reference in the FIR
can never be treated as a substantive piece of evidence in a
civil proceeding.
. 13. Learned senior counsel for the appellants strongly re-
D
lied on the statement of Shri S.K. Malhotra counsel for the vend-
ees in support of their claim. It is seen that Shri Malhotra had
made a statement on 13.06.1979 to the effect that the vendees
woufd not dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit land except in E
due course of law. From the said statement, it was argued that
it amounts to his admission that the plaintiffs were in posses-
sion of the suit land on the date of sale of the land to the vend-
ees. As rightly observed by the High Court, from the statement
_. of the counsel, it cannot be construed that the parties have ad- F
mitted the status of the plaintiffs as tenants under the vendor.
Consequently, we reject the said contention and accept the con-
c!usion arrived at by the High Court.
14. Though the appellants heavily relied on the evidence
of P.W. 9 Lumberdar and P.W. 10 and P.W. 11 - neighbours, as G
observed earlier, in the absence of any documentary evidence,
,. such as entries in the revenue records, lease deed, rent receipt
etc. no. credence would be given to their oral evidence. In fact,
the statement of P.W.9 who claims to be a Lumberdar runs
counter to the revenue records. As observed earlier, in the ab- H
728 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 8 S.C.R.
A sence of acceptable documentary evidence, the case of the
plaintiffs cannot be accepted on the basis of oral evidence of
neighbours.
15. In the light of the above discussion, we are satisfied
that the High Court has considered all the relevant aspects and
8 rightly set aside the judgment and decree of the first Appellate
Court and restored that of the trial Court. Consequently, both
the appeals fail and are accordingly dismissed. No costs.
D.G. Appeals dismissed
...
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "tenancy"Sign in to search