Mehar Chand and Others vs Kavti Parshad and Others

R.N. Mittal, J.—This judgment will dispose of R.F.A. No. 388 of 1975 and C M No. 602/CI/I9SO

Briefly, the facts are that the land comprised in Khasra Nos. 659 and 714 measuring 2 Bighas 1 Biswa Pukhta was acquired by the State Government It is stated that the Appellants were owner of the land and they had given it on perpetual leases to the predeces-sors-in-interest of Respondent Nos. 1 to 10 vide lease deed dated 8.8.1931 in which there was a condition that in case the land was acquired, the land owner would be entitled to whole of the compensation with respect to the land and the tenant with respect to the plantation. The Land Acquisition Collector gave his award dated 20-1-1968 under which he assessed Rs. 28,525.75 as compensation of the land. He also fixed compensation of the Henna plantation which had been planted by the Respondents at the rate of Rs. 4,800/- per acre. The compensation amount was paid by the Collector to the landowners, and the compensation regarding Henna Plantation to the Respondent.,The matter was referred to the District Judge under Sections 18 and 30 of the Land Acquisition Act for determining the compensation and its apportionment between the parties on the application of the Respondents.

The Additional District Judge held that the amount of compensation fixed by the Collector was correct and that the Appellants were entitled to 25% of compensation and the Respondents to 75% thereof. The land owners have come up in appeal against the judgment of the Additional District Judge. They have also filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27, CPC for taking on record mutation No. 1907 dated 2nd-May, 1936 regarding inheritance of Kidar Nath in favour of his nephews. The Respondents are contesting the application.

First, I shall deal with C.M. application. The Appellants in order to prove their claim produced lease deed dated 8.8.1931 Ex. R-1 by which the land was given on perpetual lease by Shiv Lal and Chandan sons of Tulsi Ram, caste-Brahmin in favour of Kidar Nath son of Amrao Singh, caste Mahajan Aggarwal resident of Faridabad, tehsil.Ballabgarh on an annual lease amount of Rs. 28/- w.e. of 1.61931. Kidar Nath died and the mutation which is now sought to be produced regarding his inheritance in favour of his nephews was attested. The land which is subject-matter of ''lease as given in the lease deed comprises in Khasra Nos. 515 and 566. The consolidation takes place in the village and during consolidation new khasra numbers, were allotted in lieu of the old Khasra numbers The new Khasra numbers allotted to the lessees are 659 and 714. As stated above, the Khasra numbers in dispute are ''the ''said two Khasra numbers namely 659 and 714. In the Jamabandi Exs. R-2.and R-3, the amount of lease mentioned is Rs..28/- per year. In the column of cultivation in the Jamabandi, the lessees are shown to be Mahajans. All the above-said things tally with these mentioned in the lease deed. However, the trial Court carne to the conclusion that it has not been shown that the Respondents got the property in inheritance from Kidar Nath. In order to prove. that fact, now the present mutation has been produced by the Appellants. It has been held by the Supreme Court in K. Venkataramiah Vs. A. Seetharama Reddy and Others, that under Rule 27(1), the appellate Court has the power to allow additional evidence not only if it requires such evidence to enable it to pronounce judgment but also for any other substantial cause There may well be cases where even though the court finds that it is able to pronounce judgment on the state of record as it is and so it cannot strictly say that it requires additional evidence to enable it to pronounce judgment, it still considers that in the interest of justice something which remains obscure should be field up so that it can pronounce its judgment in a more satisfactory manner. Such a case will be one for allowing additional evidence for any other substantial cause under Rule 27 (1) (b) of the Code. Such requirement of the court is not likely to arise ordinarily unless some inherent lacuna or defect becomes, apparent on an examination of the evidence. It, is further observed, that it may well'' be that the defect becomes apparent on an examination of the evidence. It is further observed that it may well be that the defect may be pointed out by a party or that a, party may; move-the Court to supply the defect, but the requirement must be the requirement of the Court upon its appreciation of the evidence as it stands.

The, above observations are fully applicable to the facts of the case. The Respondents are taking, benefit of the fact that the Appellants have, not been able to show that the Respondents inherited the property from Kidar Nath It may be highlighted that all other details given in the lease deed tally with those given in the latest Jamabandi. I am, therefore, of the view that in order to do complete justice between the parties, this necessary to take into consideration the mutation Consequently, I accept the application and exhibit the document as Ex. R4.

Now 1 advert to the appeal. It is not disputed that in the lease deed there is a term that if the land is acquired the land owner shall be entitled to the price of the land and the tenant to the price of the plantation. The Appellants are successors-in-interest of Kidar Nath according to mutation Ex.:R-4. Therefore, in accordance with the, lease deed the Appellants-are entitled to whole of the price of the land. In the above view, I am fortified by the judgment of the revision Bench judgment of.this Court in Brij Narain v.; State of Haryana2 wherein similar circumstances, similar view was taken.

Faced with, that situation, Learned Counsel for the Respondents sought to urge that the original lease deed was not produced by the Appellants and therefore its copy could-not be exhibited u/s 90 of the Evidence Act He submits that therefore, the copy of the tease deed should not be read into evidence.

I have Daly considered the arguments but do not find any substance in it. The document was got produced from a Clerk of the registration department. When it was exhibited no objection was raised by the counsel far the.respondents. It is-well Settled that if the mode of proof is not challenged at the time of exhibition of the document it cannot be allowed to be challenged at a later stage. Consequently, the Respondents cannot be allowed to do so now.

For the aforesaid reasons, I accept the appeal with Costs, modify the judgment of the Additional District Judge and hold that the Appellants are entitled to whole of the amount of compensation.

Appeal accepted.