Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose between adjoining landowners in Mouza Sirsi. The plaintiffs (respondents) owned 6.07 hectares, and the defendant (appellant) owned 4.23 hectares. A resurvey in 1991 showed the defendant's land as 5.3 hectares, an excess of 1.07 hectares. The plaintiffs applied to the Sub Divisional Officer (S.D.O.), who directed correction of revenue records restoring the original position. The defendant erected wire fencing, encroaching on plaintiffs' land, leading to a suit for possession. The trial court decreed the suit, affirmed by the first appellate court and the High Court in second appeal. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the concurrent findings of fact regarding encroachment could not be interfered with. The Court rejected arguments that the map was not proved under Section 83 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, noting it was prepared by revenue authorities and its evidentiary value remained despite the S.D.O.'s order being set aside. The Court also rejected the objection under Section 138 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, as the section permits civil suits against ejectment orders and no bar on civil court jurisdiction was shown.
Headnote
A) Evidence Act - Admissibility of Maps - Section 83, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Map prepared by revenue authorities on directions of S.D.O. is admissible even if the order directing preparation was set aside, as it depicts boundaries based on holdings of parties - Held that the map's evidentiary value is not affected by subsequent setting aside of the order (Para 8). B) Maharashtra Land Revenue Code - Maintainability of Civil Suit - Section 138, Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 - Section 138 permits civil suit against any order of ejectment; no bar on jurisdiction of civil court was pointed out - Held that the objection of maintainability is without merit (Para 9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the map prepared on directions of S.D.O. was admissible under Section 83 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and whether the civil suit was barred under Section 138 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal with no order as to costs, upholding the concurrent findings of fact that the defendant encroached upon the plaintiffs' land. The Court held that the map prepared by revenue authorities was admissible under Section 83 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and the civil suit was maintainable under Section 138 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966.
Law Points
- Section 83 of the Indian Evidence Act
- 1872
- Section 138 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code
- 1966
- maintainability of civil suit
- proof of maps
- concurrent findings of fact
