Shivraya, Son of Basappa Vs. Bakkappa, Son of Irappa - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- [ r.m. sahai and; n.p. singh, jj.] - evidence act, 1872 — section. 35 — panchayat register — evidentiary value -- both claimed title to the land in dispute. the trial court decreed the suit. the high court in second appeal reversed the order. the appeal was allowed by the high court only on an entry in the panchayat register showing that the plaintiff was owner of the property. an entry in panchayat register is not an entry which could establish title in favour of the plaintiff. the order passed by the high court is set aside.r.m. sahai and; n.p. singh, jj.1. heard learned counsel.2. leave granted.3. this is defendant's appeal. the appellant and the respondent are close relations. both claimed title to the land in dispute. the plaintiff claimed that the property came to his share in a partition between him and his brother whereas the defendant claimed that he inherited it from his paternal grandfather. both parties led evidence. the trial court decreed the suit. the order was set aside in appeal. the high court in second appeal reversed the order. it was held that the appellate court dismissed the suit only by discarding the extract of panchayat register without discussing any other evidence on the record.4. the appeal was allowed by the high court only on an entry in the panchayat register showing that the plaintiff was owner of the property. reliance was placed on it as the entry was made at a time when the defendant himself was the chairman. the high court committed the same error in allowing the appeal which according to it was committed by the first appellate court inasmuch as it did not discuss any material on record to arrive at the finding that it was the plaintiff who was the owner of the land in dispute except the extract from panchayat register. an entry in panchayat register is not an entry which could establish title in favour of the plaintiff. in relying only on this entry and dismissing the suit without considering any evidence on record when it was admitted that the defendant had already constructed a house in the land in dispute after obtaining permission from panchayat, the high court did not act in accordance with law.5. in the result this appeal succeeds and is allowed. the order passed by the high court is set aside. the case is remitted back to the high court which shall restore it to its original number and decide it afresh in accordance with law. any observation made above shall not be treated as binding. since no one appeared for the respondent, there shall be no order as to costs.