Anda di halaman 1dari 19

Page | 1 of 19

i f P j U P P
v Pg f
v Pg
i g,
Ai:- A,r.Ai./Pgt AS/JA.Ai.J (C) 22/2010-11 AP 21-04-
2 0 11 g v w l g Ug s D AiPj U gz , w PU r g
U, z j D j w Ai Az j Ai z P s g v j z
P J Az i q v Q g S vPg g vAii j PAq v
U P v U P P C AU vgw z .
t'... .t...-' .:.::.e'. .t..:. -:. .t..:. tt.: t':
A g 5 7 / 1 g 0 J Pg 3 3 UAm d S vz gg z w w
v PA AUAi G g s AUU q E g K PP g w
Z E g P z P i g . Z D z v
E vg Pl A z z g z v UAU , z gg z
AZ PgAi, ZAz R g, AU , G i w , D Az P i g , q Pj g g
g V Ai v g V Ai w g vPg g K Az g.
1. w l g P , w l g U z A g 5 6 g 0 J Pg 2 6 UAm
R g e U z C z g Uj E gv J Az PAz Ai
E S Ai t w v. A g 5 7 g 2 J Pg 13 UAm R g
e U z C z g i g Al E z J Az t z R vz .
A g 5 7 / 1 g 0 J Pg 3 3 UAm d Pg z
v PA AUU q G g s AUAi J A g g
Ug PA Az Pn z J Az 117 6 / 2 8 - 2 9 g P g
Ad g V gvz J Az t G R w vz . E z v
U P vgz w l g Ug s D AiPg g U q v
Page | 2 of 19
P g q PU e j i q Aiw w g z
D P Z g V gvz .
2 . w m v PA AUU q G g s AUAi g g
j E g M q vz A g 5 7 / 1 g 0 J Pg 3 3 UAm
l g z Aii D d d d E g .
S Az g z v U w g Av P l P D a E S Ai
s g z R AiAv 19 18 g Ai w l g Ug s C vz E v
J A z vg z j D a z R Ai g v U P
vg V z
DETAI LS OF DOCUMENT
ComputerSerialNo: 177910
DocumentClassification: HRS DocumentImportance: MEDIUM
Subject: WhereasbyproclamationpublishedontheJanuary1918atpages3-4inEnglishandatpages6-7
inKannadaoftheMysoreGazette,partII,for1918andpostedupinconspicuousplacesinthetownofTiptur
District,itwasdulyannouncedunderSection8oftheMunicipalRegulationVIIof1906,thatitwasproposed
undersection7ofthesaidRegulationtoconstitutethetownofTipturthelocalareacomprisedwithinthelimits
specifiedinthatproclamation.
Origin: Gazte.Govt.OfMysore Department: Municipal
IdentificationNo: P1/S2/July
RackNo: C58
SerialNo: 10-Ml .86-17-72,dated1stJuly1918
DocumentYear: 1918 PageNumber: 481
Language: ENGLI SH TypeofDocument: GAZETTE
Conditionofdocument: YELLOW ConditionDate: 6/19/2003
Microfilmed?: YESMicrofilmRollNo?: 581Scanned?: NOSpareCopyAvailable: Y
3 . w v g f v Ai C g E z g
z R U D V gv . C U U e g P w U
s z C w U s g . w v g g
w l g s Aii Aiz z AiAz r gv g. z j
z AS N . J . 8 5 / 19 7 9 D V gvz . z j z 15 - 12 - 19 8 0 g
.t:c:.e:'. .. :'.. -..t: :t: az-a-iszs : s:'o -.
A. 2 6 1/ 2 8 - 2 9 J A Av J P . 1 gAv i P D V gvz . z j z Ai
U E g A g 5 7 g 3 3 UAm d M q v J w r z
D z V z . z j Avgz U F U C P z U G Am V z
J z g g V D z V gvz . D z j Az z j s
Page | 3 of 19
Ad g w D z AP Az P P P Aii j w Ai P j
QU z Pl v z E z . E gU Q E z
J Az Aii z n U P j w Ai P U d gV g .
4 . PAz Ai E S Ai A g 5 7 / g 19 8 2 - 8 3 g
.:: s.,i. :. =c:.t .o't'. .t' .:t .:' -:'
j w Ai g v 12 P A i v z Ugv J Az
G R gvz . 8 7 - 8 8 g Avg 12 P A J . J . R g J Az
G R gvz . 19 2 9 g PAz Ai E S Ai U v g
t':. :..tc ..:. :'.. -..t: :t: s:'o: ....
PAz Ai E S U t Pn g z P Avgz 117 6 / 2 8 - 2 9 g P g
t..:.:. s:'otc:.e:'. :'.. -..t: s:'o .' z-i,zs-zs
v Avgz Ad g w AS 117 6 / 2 8 - 2 9 J Az G R V g U
S Az g z v t U U z .
5 . z j d v: PAz Ai E S U j z V z , z j d U
:t: t.-.. .: t.' -.:.t:-' :'.. -..t: s:'o:.e'
PAz Ai E S U t Pn z Ad g w D z D V gvz . z j
:... t.t' :t' tttc .e: 't.t.c .:: --. --,i.
6 4 5 , 6 4 5 / 1, 6 4 7 J Az S v D V gvz C x PAz Ai
E S Ai P z QAi D z S v D V gvz . z j d
t':'. '...-'t t...e: .t..:. t::' :tct' ..:.
tt:t' sc:.t:.. -t: t.e. t..:.:. t' -.: t'.o'
i v U V gvz . D z P gt w l g Ug s D AiPj U Aii z
j w Ai z j D Ai P E g . D a
s g z z w l g PAz Ai E S Ai z R w U v
g U z R Qz P Ai i w Ai Pr
Pgv .
6 . s z R w U D z s gz 19 2 8 - 2 9 Az Ad g w AiAv
:.:t t.e. :'e:. :'t'. .:. zaia-ii ' .t' si tt:
Page | 4 of 19
D Uvz . 19 6 8 QAv Az v PAz Ai E S Ai z E z
z R w Pz g y V z J Az A g q P j PZj Ai
Ai V g U, 19 2 8 - 2 9 g z R Pz g E g
z s , z sz f g U U U i j , gU ,
Aiz UAz D z P P v f U , E gU J gq
v i g C z Aiz v J gq v i j A z R
-'::' t't' ::c.t:.. t. .:t-' .o -'..: :t'... -.
:'. .::. :'.. -..t: s:'o: .o'.:'. tt.... .:'
j w Ai Ad g w Ai G R z , U D z z Avg Ad g w
sc:.t:. .: :o.t.: t.::. .:: :t' -'..:t
j e z D AiPg g P g g Az
d g z v P P Az V g z U D Ai v
G Al i r z .
7 . 19 2 8 - 2 9 g v Pg f P j U 4 D t P v Ad g
s C i r 2 D t P v Ad g s P i r
r U gz r i Pv q Av D z V g z , E gU
g P g U C x P P g U gz
r g . g PAz Ai P C r Ai Ad g V g z
t'..:. t..t.. isa- : :'t.o't -.. ...t. is-.
g g s C Ai z D U g j r z D U C z
::. t:.t t-. st. si tt:: .e: -::-. :.t:..
A P P gt q z Aii z C f U w g j P J Az
i G Z Aii Aiz w G z v U v U P vgv,
w l g Ug s i q w g v A g 5 7 / 1 g 3 3 UAm
v d U Ad g w J Az vg t G R Az
A t i Pv Avg V g z U gvz . In
Kamlesh Babu & Ors vs Lajpat Rai Sharma & Ors 2008
(6) SCR 653 It is well settled that Section 3(1) of the
LimitationActcastsadutyuponthecourttodismissasuitor
Page | 5 of 19
an appeal or an application, if made after the prescribed
period, although, limitation is not set up as a defence. Apex
Court in the case of Kerala State Electricity Board,
Trivandrum v. T.P. Kunhaliumma AIR 1997 SC 282. The
ApexCourthaslaiddownthelawthatthetimelimitofthree
years prescribed under Article 137 of the Limitation Act
applies to any application filed under any Act. D n P 13 7
....'t -..'. .:.... ...t:' .:: ... : tt: -....
q V z Aq i Pn w Av Aii z P AiU
C Ai U z J w vj vz . V g UAi w l g Ug s
si tt:: .e: ...t:' t-. .:' .:: ...:.t:. -..
g q PAii V gvz .
8 . W P t G R U v g PPAq P
.o'.e. t. -'. si tt:-. t'.... -.:... :o't
/ t J An U Aii z P s gvAi vg g C z P
P z vAi P r g U, C z j Ai Az vg
P Ug s D AiPg z j t G R U U P z s g
:'. t.. si tt:: t' :.e. .t'.:. t.t' t::
q w g z P s gv Az Pr gvz . Sita Ram Bhau
Patil v. Ramachandra Nago Patil (Dead) by L.Rs., and
Anr., . AIR 1977 SC 1712 It considered the presumption to
be raised under Section 135-J of the Bombay Land Revenue
Code,whichappearstobeinpari-materiawithSection133of
the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. The Supreme Court has
stated in para 20, as"With regard to the record of rights
Counsel for the appellant said that presumption arises with
regard to its correctness. There is no abstract principle that
whateverwillappearintherecordofrightswillbepresumed
tobecorrectwhenitisshownbyevidencethattheentriesare
notcorrect.Apartfromtheintrinsicevidenceintherecordof
Page | 6 of 19
rightsthattheyrefertofactswhichareuntrueitalsoappears
thattherecordofrightshavereferencetothemutationentry
that was made by the Circle Officer on 30 January 1956.
Counsel for the respondent rightly contended that no
presumption could arise for two principal reasons. First, the
oralevidenceinthiscasenullifiedtheentriesintherecordof
rightsasshowingastateofaffairsopposedtotherealstateof
affairs, and, second, no notice was ever given to the
respondentwithregardtomutationproceedings."Supreme
Court in Sri Bhimeshwara Swami Varu Temple v.
Pedapudi Krishna Murthy & ors. AIR 1973 SC 1299. It is
statedinparas5and8as:"5.Itistrue thatthenameofthe
appellant is recorded as a "ryot" in 3 entries in the revenue
accounts,ExhibitsA-9,A-10andA-ll.ExhibitA-9isanextract
fromtheSettlementRegisterofthevillageofVunguturandis
referredtoas No.10accountof Vungutur village.Exhibits A-
10 and A-ll are extracts from the Diglet Register It has
howevertoberememberedthatasagainstthesestrayentries
almost the entire revenue record is in favour of the Archaks.
For example, Exhibit B-39 which is an extract from the
ResettlementRegisteroftheyear 1866showsthatoldsurvey
No. 256 corresponding to R.S. No, 1057, with which we are
concerned, stood in the name of "Kottalanka Ramanna
Ganganna" as the pattadar. Ramanna and Ganganna were
brothers, both being Archakas of the temple. Exhibit B-2 of
the year 1896 which is called a "Keroyati Patta" also shows
that old Survey No. 256 was granted to Kotta Lanka
Bupanna, who was the Archaka of the temple. The rough
patta Exhibit B-15 dated June 4, 1900 and the fair patta
Exhibit B-43 of the year 1902 are also in the name of
Kothalanka Bupanna. The long course of entries which were
consistently in favour of the Archakas cannot be ignored in
Page | 7 of 19
preferencetotheentriesinfavourofthetempleforasolitary
yearNousefulpurposewillbeservedbydiscussing
the oral evidence led by the parties. That evidence is of an
uncertain character and is inadequate to displace the
presumption arising out of the several entries spread over a
largenumberofyearsshowingthatR.S.No.1057belongedto
the Archakas and was in their possession in their own right."
Sri P. Govindaswamy vs T. Devaraj ILR 1997 KAR 1486
There is no dispute with regard to the legal position as
canvassed by the respondents learned advocate, Section 133
oftheKarnatakaLandReformsActdoesenvisagethatentires
have presumptive value. For that however, it is necessary for
a Court to scrutinise the surrounding circumstances namely
twoimportantfactors,firstlythelengthoftimeduringwhich
theentry has been onrecord, thecircumstances under which
the entry came to be made and more importantly, the
question as to whether there is a subsisting dispute with
regardtothecorrectnessofthatentry.ACourtisnotrequired
to mechanically accept whatever the revenue authorities
have put down there particularly having regard to the
manner in which these entries are made and the manner in
which they are changed. In this background, what one needs
to take seriousnote of is the fact that the entires in this case
happen to be in the name of the plaintiff for almost 15 years
afterthepartitionhastakenplace.Itwouldbealittledifficult
toacceptevenprimafaciethatduringthislongperiodoftime
therespondentwasunawareofthisfact.
9 . W P Az C Az g 19 2 8 - 2 9 j Az PAz Ai E S Aii z P
G AW Az A QAiU q J Az M PAr g U.
P C r Ai vg C r Ai Uvz . C Av C r Ai
C U r PAz Ai E S Ai AiA gd v r Qgvz .
Page | 8 of 19
-'. :c :... :'.. -..t: s:'o: t'.o' t..:.:.
D z D V g z PAz Ai z R U Ai C A z V z ,
UAz z E z z g, D d j
:::t.:e::. .:: t.c-t: t'o:. :t tt:t
M PAq C AUg U gd v r P z w l g Ug s
v PAz Ai E S Aiz V gvz , J A C A v U P vg
= -'-. o't .......: ..: .:e :tt. .o':.e't'.
Apex Court in the case of Thiru John, V. Subrahamanyan
v. The Returning Officer and Ors. , AIR 1977 SC 1724
wherein it is observed thus: It is well settled that a party's
admission as defined in Sections 17 to 20 fulfilling the
requirements of Section 21. Evidence Act, is substantive
evidence proprio vigore. An admission, if clearly and
unequivocally made, is the best evidence against the party
makingitandthoughnotconclusive,shiftstheonusontothe
maker on the principle that "what a party himself admits to
be true my reasonably be presumed to be so and until the
presumptionwasrebuttedthefactadmittedmustbetakento
beestablished...
10 . U , Ad g w , D z UAz v P j w Ai QAiAi
w P Az G Am U A PAi A Az A U
w j P V v r z P z . 81 tt:-. t':
U t w PAi w z PAz Ai E S v C z
j w Ai w z w l g F U J s z R U
w j P V q z Pw g z s gw Ai P P AiAiAv
t..:t.t'.:. e'.:.. o't .......: ..: .:e :tt.
S Az g z v U P vg V z . State of Himachal
Pradesh v Ganesh Wood Products, AIR 1996 SC 149 as
fol l ows:". . . . All that we wish to emphasise is thatanything
and everything done by the promisee on the faith of the
Page | 9 of 19
representation does not necessarily amount to altering his
positionsoastoprecludethepromisorfromresilingfromhis
representation. If equity demands that the promisor is
allowed to resile and the promisee is compensated
appropriately, that ought to be done. If, however, equity
demands, in the light of the things done by the promisee on
the faith of the representation, that the promisor should be
precludedfrom resilingandthat heshouldbe held fasttohis
representation, that should be done. To repeat, it is a matter
of holding the scales even between the parties to do justice
betweenthem.Thisistheequityimplicitinthedoctrine....To
wit, the rule of promissory estoppel being an equitable
doctrine,hastobemouldedtosuittheparticularsituation.It
is nota hard and fast rule butan elasticone, the objectiveof
which is to do justice between the parties and to extend an
equitable treatment to them. If it is more just from the point
of view of both promisor and promisee that the latter is
compensated appropriately and allow the promisor to go
backonhispromise,thatshouldbedone;butiftheCourtisof
the opinion that the interests of justice and equity demand
that the promisor should not be allowed to resile from his
representation in the facts and circumstances of that case, it
willdoso.This,inourrespectfulopinion,istheproperwayof
understanding the words "promisee altering his position".
Altering his position should mean such alteration in the
position of the promisee as it makes it appear to the Court
that holding the promisor to his representation is necessary
todojusticebetweentheparties...."
11. i P l P Pn vg w Az g q Q D s
o':.t'.. .-'-'t. t..c .'.to. :.et. .o'.e
-:: t.e. .:-:tt: ...tc. e:et. t.:::.. iz tt:-'
Page | 10 o f 19
t...:' (-::-' :a tt: tc...) :e'.... t.:.t'.....
Aiw z E g QU U j gP P w P Ai C r gvz J A
U i Aii Aiz D z z G z v U G T v v
U Aiw z . John B. James And Others vs Bangalore
DevelopmentAuthorityAndAnotherILR2000KAR4134,
2001 (1) KarLJ 364 Bench: R Raveendran, V Sabhahit
Claims based on the doctrine of 'legitimate expectation' also
require reliance on representations and resulting detriment
to the claimant, in the same way as claims based on the
doctrine of promissory estoppel. The doctrine can be invoked
if the decision which is challenged in the Court has some
person aggrieved, either by altering rights or obligations of
that person, which are enforceable by or against him in
privatelaworbydeprivinghimofsomebenefitoradvantage,
which either (i) he had in the past being permitted by the
decisionmakertoenjoyandwhichhecanlegitimatelyexpect
to be permitted to continue to do until there has been
communicatedtohimsomerationalgroundsforwithdrawing
itonwhichhehasbeengivenanopportunitytocomment;or
(ii)hehasreceivedassurancefromthedecisionmakerthatit
willnotbewithdrawnwithoutgivinghimfirstanopportunity
of advancing reasons for contending that it should not be
withdrawn. The Government and its departments, in
administering the affairs of the country are expected to
honour their statements of policy or intention and treat the
citizens with full personal consideration without any iota of
abuse or discretion. The policy statements cannot be
disregarded unfairly or applied selectively. Unfairness in the
form of unreasonableness is akin to violation of natural
justice. .. Lastly, it is also necessary to notice the
position of a trespasser who is in peaceful, open, continuous
anduninterruptedpossession ofanother'sproperty,in denial
Page | 11 o f 19
of the title of the true owner, for a long period. Section 27 of
theLimitationAct,1963providesthatatthedeterminationof
theperiodlimitedunderthatAct,toanypersonforinstituting
a suit for possession of any property, his right to such
property shall be extinguished. Article 65providestheperiod
of limitation for a suit for possession of immovable property
based on title as twelve years from the date when the
possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.
Article112providestheperiodoflimitationforsuchasuit,if
filed by or on behalf of the Central Government, or State
Governmentisthirtyyearsinsteadoftwelveyears.Article112
will not however apply to BDA as it is neither the State nor
Central Government. . In Nair Service Society's
case, supra, the Supreme Court quoted with approved the
following passage from Perry v Clissold: "It cannot be
disputed that a person in possession of land in the assumed
character of owner and exercising peaceably the ordinary
rights of ownership has a perfectly good title against all the
world but the rightful owner. And if the rightful owner does
not come forward and assert his title by the process of law
withintheperiodprescribedbytheprovisionofthestatuteof
limitation applicable to the case, his right is forever
extinguished and the possessory owner acquires an absolute
t i t l e" .
12 . P j C P j U P U P z , i i Pm
F PPAq i vU PAr vz . z j D z z G z v U v
C U U w l g D AiPg v U J Zj
r gv . In caseofUrban Improvement Trust, Bikaner Vs.
Mohan Lal before Supreme Court of India, DD 30-10-2009
BENCHJUSTICER.V.RAVEENDRAN&JUSTICEG.S.SINGHVIit
is observed by court It is a matter of concern that such
Page | 12 o f 19
frivolous and unjust litigation by governments and statutory
authorities are on the increase. Statutory Authorities existto
discharge statutory functions in public interest. They should
be responsible litigants. They cannot raise frivolous and
unjust objections, nor act in a callous and highhanded
manner.Theycannotbehavelikesomeprivate litigantswith
profiteering motives. Nor can they resort to unjust
enrichment. They are expected to show remorse or regret
when their officers act negligently or in an overbearing
manner.Whenglaringwrongactsbytheirofficersisbrought
to their notice, for which there is no explanation or excuse,
the least that is expected is restitution/restoration to the
extent possible with appropriate compensation. Their harsh
attitude in regard to genuine grievances of the public and
their indulgence in unwarranted litigation requires to be
cor r ect ed.
13.Aii QAi / C f Aiz Ai
/ C f Ai d P gt Aii z g a q z i
Aii AiP w P. C Av Z P i q z J z gz gj U i v
t'.t.::.e' .. .......-. t'. t.::.e' ..:. o't
Aii Aiz w z Av S Az g z v C U U
vg V z . InArunimaBaruahvsUnionofIndia&Ors2007(6)
scc120Itistritelawthatsoastoenablethecourttorefuse
to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction suppression must be
of material fact. What would be a material fact, suppression
whereof would disentitle the appellant to obtain a
discretionary relief, would depend upon the facts and
circumstances of each case. Material fact would mean
material for the purpose of determination of the lis, the
logical corollary whereof would be that whether the same
Page | 13 o f 19
was material for grant or denial of the relief. If the fact
suppressed is not material for determination of the lis
between the parties, the court may not refuse to exercise its
discretionary jurisdiction. It is also trite that a person
invoking thediscretionaryjurisdiction of the court cannot be
allowedtoapproachitwithapairofdirtyhands.
14........: t...:' ::.t t:-:. .t...t. t..::::.
J A z vg i Pn w C A i
Aii Aiz U P vgv, v U g D AiPg
w l g Ug s g g g C AU a n z g. It is
kindly brought to the kind attention of Honble court the
observations of Supreme court in S.P.CHENGALVARAYA
NAIDU V. JAGANNATH AND OTHERS, AIR 1994 SUPREME
COURT853, whereinitis heldasfollows:-'Thecourtsoflaw
aremeantforimpartingjusticebetweentheparties.Onewho
comes to the Court, must come with clean hands. It can be
said without hesitation that a person whose case is based on
falsehood has no right to approach the Court. He can be
summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation. A
litigant, who approaches the Court, is bound to produce all
the documents executed by him which are relevant to the
litigation. If he withholds a vital document in order to gain
advantage on the other side then he would be guilty of
playingfraudonthecourtaswellasontheoppositeparty.'
15.w l g Ug s D AiPg P PAiAv i v v
Ai w v g gv t Ai Ad g w J Az 8 1
tt::.: t..:. :.t :t' :c t..:. c.... ..:. ...t
P z s g . PAz Ai E S Ai P z R U
z P 19 6 2 g z R U D z s gz 19 2 9 j Az
Page | 14 o f 19
A g G T v Ad j D z z Z g
i r g . D z v Ad g w D z U U v
w Aiz D AiPg F q P Ad J Az vg
i i Pn w G z v U v C U U
z . Karewwa And Ors. vs Hussensab Khansaheb Wajantri
AndOrsAIR2002SC504,presumptionofcorrectnessofan
entryinrevenuerecordcannotberebuttedbyastatementin
the written statement. Mere statement of fact in the written
statement is not a rebuttal of presumption of correctness of
anentry intherevenuerecord. Therespondentwasrecorded
asatenantintherevenuerecordintheyear1973andunder
lawthepresumptionisthattheentryiscorrect.Itwasforthe
appellant to rebut the presumption by leading evidence. The
appellant has not led any evidence to show that entry in the
revenuerecordisIncorrect.
16.t.t' :.- az-a-iszs : :'.. -..t: s:'o:.e' ..
2 6 1/ 2 8 - 2 9 j v 2 D t Pn PAq Ad g i q Av
D z V gvz . Avg t G R z Av 117 6 / 2 8 - 2 9 g P g
Ad g w D z V gvz . Ad g w D z v t
G R U z t Pn z J A i w P j U
gz E g D AiPg q P j Ai z V z . E P V Ai 8 1
tt:t :.:' ::.c:.e:'. :: .:.:tc : ..:.t .t..:.
Ug s D AiPg Aii z j w Ai z j P z U U
vPg g vUAi z R d g r z , P i w vPg g
i q w g z j Ai z q P J Az vg i i
Pn D z z G z v U v C U U w z In
State of Haryana vs. Hari Ram Yadav, AIR 1994 SC 1262 it
waspointed out that in cases where the exercise of statutory
power is subject to the fulfillment of a condition, then the
recital about the said condition having been fulfilled in the
Page | 15 o f 19
order raises a presumption about the fulfillment of the
condition, and the burden is on person who states that the
conditionisnotfulfilledtoprovethesame.
1 7 . w v g g w l g s Aii Aiz
z AiAz r gv g. z j z AS N . J . 8 5 / 19 7 9 D V gvz .
z j z 15 - 12 - 19 8 0 g w V gvz . z j w
:'e: t-. t'.:.. :c :'.. -..t: s:'ot. t.
Aii g Za gv g. C z g v w i i
Pn w G z v U v C U U gv. Supreme
Courtcannot allow the statement of the judges to be
contradicted by statements at the Bar or by affidavit and
other evidence.Mattersofjudicial recordare unquestionable
andnotopentodoubt.Judgescannotbedraggedintothe
arena. If the judges say in their judgments that something
was done, said or admitted before them, that has to be the
lastwordonthesubject.Judgesrecordisconclusive.Stateof
Maharashtra vs. Ramdas Shrinivas Naik AIR 1982 SC
1251.
1 8 . gw Ai P P Ai P A 3 5 g w g Av z j d P
P j Ai v Pv z C r q V g z R v C z g
z U A vPAv P Az gvz . t P U
vAi j w J A P A A g 5 7 / 1 3 3 UAm
z 117 6 / 2 8 - 2 9 g P g Ad g w J Az z E g U z j
Ad g w Ai D z t Pn z Avg r g z J A z
Ug s D AiPj U w Aiz V z v z P z AvP
gz V z , J Az vg z j P A 3 5 g t g v
U P vgw z . 35.Relevancyofentryinpublicrecordmade
in performance of duty.- An entry in any public or other
official book, register or record, stating a fact in issue or
Page | 16 o f 19
relevant fact, and made by a public servant in the discharge
ofhisofficialduty,orbyanyotherpersoninperformanceofa
duty specially enjoined by the law of the country in which
suchbook,registerorrecordiskept,isitselfarelevantfact.
1 9 . ::.... - -..'. -.. sa :. t..te. tt: t'
z R w Ai j AiV V z J Az j P J A
z Av V z . P PAz Ai E S Ai t Ai
19 8 2 QAv AZ Az 19 2 8 - 2 9 g Ad g w J Az z
A g U C z F U z R P z J Az w z C
P i q z j Aii z P V gvz . F UAi P
v U P Ai i i Pn D z z G z v U
v U P vg V z . Sri Lakni Baruan And Others vs Sri
PadmaKantaKalita&OrsAIR1996SC1253Section90
of the Evidence Act is founded on necessity and convenience
becauseitisextremelydifficultandsometimesnotpossibleto
leadevidencetoprovehandwriting,signatureorexecutionof
old documents after lapse of thirty years. In order to obviate
such difficulties or improbabilities to prove execution of an
old document, Section 90 has been incorporated in the
EvidenceAct,whichdoesawaywiththestrictruleofproofof
private documents. Presumption of genuineness may be
raised if the documents in question is produced from proper
custody. It is, however, the discretion of the Court to accept
the presumption flowing from Section 90. There is, however,
no manner of doubt that judicial discretion under Section 90
shouldnotbeexercisedarbitrarilyandnotbeinginformedby
r easons.
2 0 . t. -'. t..to -o :'..t t t.::.t:..
PAz Ai E S Ai Ad g w D z z Av 19 2 8 - 2 9 g
Page | 17 o f 19
.:-ct. .:t -.:... o'... .:-ct. 't.t.c .::
r S v vg gv g. z j S v vg g 19 2 8 - 2 9 g
D z U PAz Ai C P j U D z U P
P gz w l g g s D AiPg w P s g
19 6 2 C Am z U vgv S v
e i q Pj g P g V gvz .
:'.. -..t: :o:-ctc.e :c... .:-ctc:. .t:
C z F j w C f v U Aiw z P
s g V gvz . F Z g V P j w Ai Ai i
Pn Az Az z z f P j U P R Ar
D V g D z z U v U P vg V z . Jattayya Rama
Naik vs Glain ILR 1987 KAR 822, 1987 (1) KarLJ 259
Facts of the case:- On 14-12-1981 the Chief Officer of the
Honnavar Town Municipal Council issued a building licence
subject to certain conditions in favour of the petitioner. The
licence mentions the survey as 530/5, building No. 725. The
respondents 1 to 5 aggrieved by the said grant of licence
moved the Deputy Commissioner, Karwar, under Sub-section
(1) of Section 306 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964,
(hereinafter referred to as the Act) for suspension of the
licencegranted,asthesamewascontrarytolaw.TheDeputy
Commissioner, Accordingly, the order passed by the TMC,
Honnavararequashed.AsrequiredunderTMCActadetailed
report will have to be sent to the Government urgently
throughtheDivisionalCommissionerBelgaum,forconfirming
theactiontakenbyme.TheStayissuedbythisCourtismade
absolute. The High court quashed the DC order stating
Sub-section (1) of Section 306 of the Act is not a remedy
provided to aggrieved persons to move the Deputy
Commissioner so that he may frequently interfere with the
routine work of the Municipality. I have further stated that
Page | 18 o f 19
thesectionisintendedtoprotectindividualorpublicinterests
only when there is imminent danger or threat to such
individual interest or public interest or peace and not
otherwise. In a dispute in regard to title between the land
owner and the tenant, the Deputy Commissioner cannot look
for illegality or imminent danger to the interest of the
petitioners before him when those petitioners are already
before a Court of law which has all the powers to give them
relief. In that view of the matter, the 8th respondent Deputy
Commissioner ought not to have proceeded to quash the
licencegrantedforwhichhehasnopoweratall.
2 1. w l g s Aii Aiz N . J . 116 / 2 0 10 g P l P
-::: t.. -...::.:t.. :'.. -..t: (-.:... o'
P Ai z s U) , f P j U v Pg, G s U P j U
w l g, v gg w l g g g z Ai
r gv . z j z Ai P A 8 0 . . n r Ai z
P V z . C P V w P z g l i q z
P j C P j U P g g U q z F j w Aii V
Az V g z Pm Ai g P C z
d z gz V g d z j w Ai w w g z
z gz z g i Aii V gvz J A z Aii V z F U
P Pg z v Az P G vg Ai v . P g v
P Pq P z R AiA U, Aii Aiz g
U P l P v i PvP AU vg gz J A
P i U z gw g C AiPj U j Aii V z
i q PAz v Pgv .
F Aq P gt UU v P z AvP S Az g z v i v r
w l g Ug s D AiPg Ai x P Avz Ai gz
i q PAz Pgv . z j Ai z Aii V j w v V z F
Page | 19 o f 19
Aq P gt U q Ai Z gu C Az v U w z Az
E vPg g j z C z gAv Az j z U n r z
Q g S d g V vPg g, z R v z E a j w Ai
P P j PAq F vPg g gv .
E Aw Az UA U
: v Pg
AP: 3 0 - 0 5 - 2 0 11 ( P i g )
F vPg g Az vAii j z
Q g
E Az : -
P i g m . Z
Pm, w l g Ug