Appeal No 1997 of 1968
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 13th February 1968 of the Bombay High Court in Special Civil Application No 643 of 1967
BN Lokur and A G Ratnaparkhi for the Appellant
SV Gupte RB Datar and Sanjeev Kumar for Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAY CJ
This appeal by special leave is from the judgment dated 13 February 1968of the High Court of Bombay
The appellant was owner of land covered by Survey No 2012 19413 20029 and 19415
The appellant s wife sold this land to respondent No 1 on 14 June 1946
On 12 April 1962 the appellant made an application under  section 70b of the Bombay Tenancy  Agricultural Lands Act hereinafter referred to as the Bombay Act for a declaration that he was a tenant of two of the four plots of land namely Survey Nos 19415 and 20029
This dispute between the appellant and the respondent in regard to alleged tenancy claim for these two survey numbers went up to the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal
The Tribunal by order dated 19 March 1954 rejected the claim of the appellant to tenancy in respect of the land covered by Survey Nos
20029 and 19415
Thereafter the respondent filed an application on 24 January 1963 under section 70b of the Bombay Act for a declaration that the appellant was not tenant of the remain ing two Survey Nos2012 and 19413
The respondent alleged that he never leased the land to the appellant
The re spondent further said that he came to know about entry in the record of rights for the years 1955 56 on the strength of mutation alleged to have been made on 30 January 1956 and sanctioned on 13 November 1956
This application of the respondent was resisted by the appellant on the ground that he was tenant of these two survey Nos
2012 and 19413
The matter was heard by the Mamlatdar
By an order dated 31 July 1963 the Mamlatdar rejected the claim of the appellant to be
a tenant
Thereafter the matter was taken up to the District Deputy Collector
The Deputy Collector by his order dated 27 June 1966 upheld the Mamlatdar s order
Before the Mamlatdar and the Deputy Collector the respondent examined himself
He was cross examined and his attention was drawn in cross examination towards an alleged admission about the appellant being his tenant in the depo sition
recorded by the Tenancy Aval Karkun in an earlier case on 10 September 1962
The respondent denied that he madeany admission
The previous deposition was not shown to him on that day
673 On 9 July 1963 a certified copy of the deposition in the earlier proceedings was placed on record
On that very day the
appellant examined himself saying that he was a tenant of the land and he had no other evidence to show in support of his case except the certified copy of the statement which was produced on that day
The appellant also relied on the extracts of the record of rights showing that the respondent was shown as Kabze dar  of Survey Nos
2012 and the appellant was shown as tenant of the same
In regard to Survey No 19413 it also appeared from the record of rights that the respondent was shown as kabzedar  and the appellant as a tenant
On this evidence the Mamlatdar held that the appellant was not Cultivating the lands as a tenant of the respondent and he declared that the appellant was not a tenant
The Deputy ColleCtor affirmed the order of the Mamlatdar
The Maharashtra ReVenue Tribunal however by its order dated 9 January 1967 held that the appellant was proved to be a tenant of the land
The respondent thereupon took the matter to the High Court under Article 227
The High Court set aside the order of the Revenue Tribunal
The appellant obtained special leave from this Court
On behalf of the appellant three contentions were advanced
First that the respondent was bound by his admission that the appellant is a tenant
Second there is a presumption of the correctness of the record of rights under section 135 J of the Bombay Land Revenue Code 1879
Third the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal was justified in setting aside the findings of fact of the Mamlatdar and the Deputy Collec tor because of error of law
The admission on which reliance has been placed by counsel for the appellant suffers from three infirmities
In the deposition of the respondent in Tenancy Case No 661 62 dated 10 September 1962 the respondent gave evi dence in regard to dispute between the respondent and the appellant in relation to Survey Nos
20029 and 19415 respondent said that he never kept the appellant as a tenant on the land
In cross examination it was suggested to the respondent that the land bearing Survey No 2012 belonged to the respondent and that the appellant is a tenant in the land
The respondent said as follows The land Survey No 2012 situate in Balkum belongs to me in Balkum
The applicant is a tenant in the said land
I do not take the rent in respect of the said land  
I have prior to 15 20 years purchased this land from Sita ram Bhau
Even the land bearing section No 2012 was purchased right from him
I have never cultivated the land bearings section No 2012
It was barren at that time
When this land was to be acquired I learnt whether Sitaram Bhau was culti vating this land  or whether his name has been entered as a tenant against this land I cannot say as to whose land is around the land beating section No 2012 or other Land
 674 This evidence read in its entirety is not an admission at all
A person who says that I have taken no rent  obviously says that there is no relationship of landlord or tenant
The first infirmity in regard to this admission is that whatever was said by the respondent in regard to Survey No 2012 is irrelevant and inadmissible in the deposition of the respondent in that case
Section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act states that An admission is a statement oral or documentary which suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact and which is made by any of the persons and under the circumstances hereinafter men tioned 
In regard to dispute between the appellant and the respondent arising out of Survey No 19415 and 20029 Survey Nos
2012 and 19413 were neither issues in fact nor relevant fact
The second infirmity against this admission being used against the respondent is that as long as the respondent was under cross examination it was not brought to his notice
It is said by counsel for the appellant relying on the decision of this Court in Bharat Singh and Anr
vs Bhagira thi reported in 19661 SCR 606 that this admission was proved by the appellant and this admission on the ruling Of the decision of this Court Supra is substantive evidence and is therefore admissible against the respondent
The decision of this Court in Bharat Singh s case Supra is that Admissions have to be clear if they are to be used against the person making them
Admissions are substantive evidence by them selves in view of sections 17  22 of the Indian Evidence Act though they are not conclusive proof of the matters admitted
 Admission proved are said in the decision to be admissible evidence irrespective of whether the party making them appeared in the witness box or not and whether the party when appearing as witness was confronted with those statements in case it made a statement contrary to those admissions
Counsel for the appellant submitted that the respond ent even though not confronted with the admissions would be bound by his admissions and the appellant would be enti tled to rely on the admissions as admissible
There is the observation in the very next sentence in the aforesaid decision of this Court that the purpose of contradicting the witness under section 145 of the Evidence
Act is very much different from the purpose of proving the admission
It therefore
 follows that admission is relevant and it has to be proved before it becomes evidence
If admission is proved and if it is thereafter to be used against the party who has made it the question comes within the provisions of Section 145 of the Evidence Act
The provisions in the Indian Evidence Act that admission is not conclusive proof  are to be considered in regard to two features of evidence
First what weight is to be attached to an admission  In order to attach weight it has to 675 be found out whether the admission is clear unambiguous and is a relevant piece of evidence
Second even if the admis sion is proved in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act and if it is to be used against the party who has made it it is sound that if a witness is under cross examination on oath he should be given an opportunity if the document are to be used against him to tender his explanation and to clear up the point of ambiguity or dis pute
This is a general salutary and intelligible rule see Bal Gangadhar Tilak vs Shrinivas Pandit 42 Indian Appeals 135 at page 147
The Judicial Committee in that case said it has to be observed with regret and with surprise that the general principle and the specific statu tory provisions have not been followed
The general prin ciple is that before any person is to be faced with any statement he should be given an opportunity to see that statement and to answer the same
The specific statutory provision is contained in Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act that A witness may be cross examined as to previous statements made by him in writing or reduced into writing and relevant matters in question without such writing being shown to him or being proved but if it is intended to contradict him by the writing his attention must before the writing can be proved be called to those parts of it which are to be used for the purpose of contradicting him
The fore a mere proof of admission after the person whose admission is alleged to be has concluded his evidence will be of no avail a cannot be utilised against him
The third infirmity with regard to this admission is whether this is a clear and unequivocal admission
The High Court said thata certified copy of the deposition was placed on record on 9 July 1973 on which day against it does not appear that the contents of the deposition were read out to the respondent or that any attempt was made to obtain leave of the Court to further cross examine the witness The contents of the  alleged admission to which reference has been made are not unambiguous and cannot be accepted as an admission
The contents are that he was not receiving any rent and the land was fallow
Therefore the High Court was right in rejecting the contentions advanced by the appellants that there was any admission and in set ting aside the decision of the Revenue Tribunal
The second  contention on behalf of the appellant is that the certain record of rights relied on by the appellant would establish that the appellant was a tenant
The High Court  rightly accepted the contention of the respondent that after a careful consideration of the evidence on record the fact finding courts ie the Mamlatdar and the Special Deputy Collector recorded a finding that the appellant had not cultivated the land in dispute as the tenant of the respondent
Therefore the Revenue Tribunal had no jurisdic tion to interfere and set aside the finding of fact
As to the record of rights it appears that the High Court referred to two important features
It is true that the record of rights relate to Survey Nos
2012 and 19413 and there is mention of the appellant as tenant
There is also a reference to the mutation proceedings
The name of the respondent is shown as Kabjedar
Two of the 9 112SC177 676 important heads in the record are Mode  and Crops  fal lows 
The Mode is shown as I and under Crops and fallows entry Paddy  is shown
The High Court referred to this feature of the record of rights Mode I means that the respondent cultivated as owner of the land that was never even case of the appellant
The High Court rightly said that the irresistible conclusion therefore is that the extracts from the record of rights contain entries which do not have any relation to true facts
If that is the posi tion with regard to these extracts these cannot be relied on for inference that actually the land was cultivated and paddy crops were grown on the said land
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 whatever will appear in the record of rights will be presumed to be correct when it is shown by evidence that the entries are not correct
Apart from the intrinsic evidence in the record of rights that they refer to facts which are untrue it also appears that the record of rights have reference to the mutation entry 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 oral evidence in this case nullified the entries
in the record of rights as showing a state of affairs op posed to the real state of affairs and second no notice was ever given to the respondent with regard to mutation proceedings
Therefore the respondent is right in contend ing that no presumption can validly arise from the record of rights
The third contention on behalf of the appellant that the Tribunal was justified to interfere because of error of law is also unacceptable
The provisions contained in section 76 of the Bombay Act enumerate the grounds on which there can be revision by the Revenue Tribunal
One of the grounds is that there is error of law 
In the present case the manner in which the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal entertained the revision was by holding as follows There is evidence that the applicant meaning thereby the appellant has been in actual possession of land since 1956 57 onwards
However the authorities below have rejected the entries as well as the opponents  meaning thereby the respondent admission on the ground that the applicant did not support the entries by producing the rent receipts
According to the authorities below the burden was on the applicant to prove his case by producing evidence to corroborate the entries
The appellate authority has also observed that the alleged admission of the opponent made in the other case was rejected by the Revenue Tribunal
The authorities below arrived at the conclusion that the applicant s possession was otherwise than lawful
This concurrent finding of the authorities below is being challenged by the applicant in this revision application
 The Revenue Tribunal seemed to consider the approach of the a Mamlatdar and the Deputy Collector to be erroneous because according to the Revenue Tribunal the burden was shifted to the respondent 677 to rebut the entry in the record of rights and that the respondent failed to discharge that burden
When the entire evidence is before the Court it is well settled that the burden of proof becomes immaterial
Further the Revenue Tribunal fell into error of enter taining the Revision when there was no error of law on the face of the record
The presumption which was said to arise in the record of rights was before the Deputy Collector as well as the Mamlatdar
If the authority entrusted with adjudication goes into the question and assesses the same the decision may be right or wrong but that will not go to show that there is any error of law on the fact of record
All the three contentions advanced by the appellant fail
The appeal is for the foregoing reasons dismissed with costs
PHP Appeal dis missed


Summary:
The appellant was owner of the suit land
The appel lant s wife sold this land to respondent No 1
Thereafter the appellant made an application under section 70b of the Bombay Tenancy  Agricultural Lands Act 1948 for a decla ration that he was a tenant of two of the 4 plots of the land
The dispute went up to the Maharashtra Revenue Tribu nal who rejected the claim of the appellant to tenancy
Thereafter the respondent filed an application under sec tion 70b of the said Act praying for a declaration that the appellant was not a tenant in respect of the remaining two survey numbers also
The respondent alleged that he never leased the land to the appellant and that he came to know of the entry of the record of rights for the year 1955 56 on the strength of mutation alleged to have been made on 3011966
The respondent was cross examined and it was suggested to him that he had made an admission in previ ous deposition although the said deposition was not shown to the respondent
After the cross examination of the respond ent was over a certified copy of the said deposition was placed on record
Thereafter the appellant was examined and he relied on the extract of the record of rights
The Mamlatdar rejected the claim of the appellant to be a tenant which was confirmed by the Deputy Collector
The Maharash tra Revenue Tribunal held in exercise of its revisional powers that the appellant was proved to be a tenant of the land and set aside the concurrent findings of the two au thorities below
In a writ petition filed by the respondent under article 227 of the Constitution the High Courts set aside the order of the Revenue Tribunal
Dismissing the appeal by Special Leave HELD  1
Admission on which reliance has been placed by the appellant suffers from 3 infirmities i Earlier deposition related to two different survey numbers
Whatever was stated about another survey number is irrelevant and inadmissible
Since under section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act an admission is a statement oral or documentary which suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact
ii In fact there was no admission in the earlier proceed ings and iii The deposition was not brought to the notice of re spondent when he was being cross examined
Privy Council has laid down in the case of Bal Gangadhar Tilak that before any person is to be faced with any statement he should be given an opportunity to see that statement and to answer the statement
673 E 674 A C 675 A E Bal Gangadhar Tilak vs Shrinivas Pandit 42 Indian Ap peals 135 at page 147 applied
There is a presumption about the correctness of the record of rights
However there is no abstract principle that whatever will appear in the Record of Rights will be presumed to be correct
In the present case it is shown by evidence that the entries are not correct
676 B D 672 3
Under section 76 of the Act power of Tribunal to interfere is limited
There was no error of law on the face of the record
If the authority entrusted with adjudication goes into the question and assesses the same the decision may be right or wrong but that will not go to show that there is any error of law on the face of record
676 E 677 A B