* THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM + WRIT PETITION NO. 24924 of 2004 %FRIDAY, 5TH DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND NINE # Goli Veerraju s/o Ramanna R/o Pydipala Agraharam (V), Thondangi (M), East Godavari District and others … Petitioners versus $ The Commissioner, Appeals, O/o the Chief Commissiner of Land Administration, Hyderabad and others … Respondents ! Counsel for the petitioners: Sri K.V.Subrahmanya Narsu, assisted by Mr. S.Jagadish ^ Counsel for the respondents: Government Pleader for Revenue < Gist : >Head Note: ? 1. 1967 (2) AWR 1 2. 1952 MLJ 202 3. AIR 1954 SC 415 4. 1973 (1) AWR 322 5. 1973 (2) AWR 52 6. AIR 1964 SC 807 7. (1974) 1 SCC 567 8. 1973 (1) APLJ 388 9. AIR 1919 PC 62 10. AIR 1960 SC 100 11. AIR 1971 AP 103 12. 1963 (2) AWR 214 13. AIR 1960 SC 622 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) , THE DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 24924 of 2004 Between: 1) Goli Veerraju, S/o. Ramanna, R/o. Pydipala Agraharam Village, Thondangi Mandal, East Godavari District. 2) Kondi Badrayama, W/o. Late Kondi Veeraju, R/o. Pydipala Agraharam Village, Thondangi Mandal, East Godavari District. 3) Nomala Narayana Rao, S/o. Suryanarayana Murthy, R/o. Pydipala Agraharam Village, Thondangi Mandal,East Godavari District. 4) Gosula Venkata Joginandham, S/o. Surya Rao,R/o. Pydipala Agraharam Village, Thondangi Mandal,East Godavari District. 5) Atti Suryakantham, W/o. Atti Rambabu,R/o. Pydipala Agraharam Village, Thondangi Mandal, East Godavari District. 6) Yedla Venkata Ramana, S/o. Appa Rao,R/o. Pydipala Agraharam Village, Thondangi Mandal,East Godavari District. 7) Bekkam rambabu, S/o. Subba Rao,R/o. Pydipala Agraharam Village, Thondangi Mandal, East Godavari District. 8) Kondi Veerajamma, W/o. Surya Rao, R/o. Pydipala Agraharam Village, Thondangi Mandal,East Godavari District. 9) Yedla Jagga Rao, S/o. Venkatarayudu @ Bhetaldudu, R/o.Pydipala Agraharam Village, Thondangi Mandal, East Godavari District. 10)Ravi Gandi, S/o. Hanumantha Rao,R/o. Pydipala Agraharam Village, Thondangi Mandal, East Godavari District. 11)Bekkam Thammayya, S/o. Suranna, R/o. Pydipala Agraharam Village, Thondangi Mandal, East Godavari District. 12)Ravi Thammayya, S/o. Venkatarudu,R/o. Pydipala Agraharam Village, Thondangi Mandal, East Godavari District. 13)Namala Appalaraju, S/o. Kotipalli Swamy, R/o. Pydipala Agraharam Village, Thondangi Mandal,East Godavari District. 14)Komresetti Appala Rao, S/o. Late Appalarayudu, R/o. Pydipala Agraharam Village, Thondangi Mandal, East Godavari District. 15)Ravi Ramanadham, S/o. Sri Hari, R/o. Pydipala Agraharam Village, Thondangi Mandal, East Godavari District. 16)Vemaparthi Jaggayamma, W/o. Late Bapiraju, R/o. Pydipala Agraharam Village, Thondangi Mandal, East Godavari District. 17)Saki Suramma, D/o. Late Bekkam Venkatarao, R/o. Pydipala Agraharam Village, Thondangi Mandal, East Godavari District. 18)Goli Rama Rao, s/o. Rudrayya, R/o. Pydipala Agraharam Village, Thondangi Mandal, East Godavari District. 19)Injarapu Nagayamma, w/o. Veeranna, R/o. Pydipala Agraharam Village, Thondangi Mandal,East Godavari District. 20)Goli Arunavathi, W/o. Naganna,R/o. Pydipala Agraharam village, Thondangi Mandal, East Godavari District. 21)Kondi Reddeyya @ Abbulu, S/o. Apparao, R/o. Pydipala Agraharam Village, Thondangi Mandal, East Godavari District. 22)Komirisetti Surayya, s/o. Jagannadham, R/o. Pydipala Agraharam Village, Thondangi Mandal,East Godavari District. 23)Addala China Appa Rao, S/o. Dharmayya,R/o. Pydipala Agraharam Village, Thondangi Mandal, East Godavari District. 24)Bekkam Nagartnam, w/o. Pentayya,R/o. Pydipala Agraharam Village, Thondangi Mandal, East Godavari District. 25)Manivisetti Atcharao, s/o. Surya Rao, R/o. Pydipala Agraharam Village, Thondangi Mandal,East Godavari District. 26)Manivisetti Pankala Rao, S/o. Apparao,R/o. Pydipala Agraharam Village, Thondangi Mandal, East Godavari District. 27)Diddi Subba Rao, S/o. Nukaraju,R/o. Pydipala Agraharam Village, Thondangi Mandal, East Godavari District. 28)Gosula Surya Rao, S/o. Nukaraju,R/o. Pydipala Agraharam Village, Thondangi Mandal, East Godavari District. 29)Addala Muslayya, s/o. Pallayya,R/o. Pydipala Agraharam Village, Thondangi Mandal, East Godavari District. 30 Annavarapu Nookaraju, S/o. Reddayya, R/o. Pydipala Agraharam Village, Thondangi Mandal,East Godavari District. 31)Atti Satyam, S/o. Narayya, R/o. Pydipala Agraharam Village, Thondangi Mandal,East Godavari District. 32)Chinni Nookaratnam, W/o. Tatabbai, R/o. Pydipala Agraharam Village, Thondangi Mandal, East Godavari District. ... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Commissioner, Appeals, O/o. the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, A.P., Hyderabad. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Peddapauram, East Godavari District. 3 The mandal Revenue Officer, Thondangi, E.G.District. 4 Sri Sri Satya Pramoda Teertha Swamulavaru, Trustee of Sri Ramachandra Devlu and Head of Uttaradi- Mutt ( died), per L.R. Sri Satyatma Teertha Swamulavaru, No. 1, Uttaradi Mutt Compund, Basavanguda, Banglore-4, Karnataka State. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the order of the 1st respondent made in Revision petition filed by the 4th respondent vide Commissioner Appeals Proc. No.V1/502/99, dt. 16.10.2003 and quash the same as illegal, null and void by confirming the orders of the 2nd and 3rd respondents and to pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.JAGADISH Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO. 24924 OF 2004 ORDER: Heard Sri K.V.Subrahmanya Narsu, learned counsel appearing for Mr. S.Jagadish, the learned counsel for the petitioner; the learned Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents 2 to 3 and Mr. M.S.Ramachandra Rao, learned counsel for the 4th respondent. The 32 petitioners assail the order bearing reference No. VI/502/99 dated 16.10.2003 the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent – the Commissioner Appeals in the O/o the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, AP, Hyderabad,. The revision was preferred to the 1st respondent by the 4th respondent u/Sec. 14-A of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 1956 (for short ‘the Inams Abolition Act, 1956’), aggrieved by the appellate order of the 2nd respondent in Inam Appeal No. 1/89 conforming the order of the 3rd respondent dated 31.07.1989 in RC.NO. C1/88. The revision was allowed. The 4th respondent had filed a petition u/Sec.7 of the Inams Abolition Act, 1956 for grant of a Ryotwari Patta for Ac.410.57 cts in Pydipala Agraham (village), Tuni Taluk, East Godavari District. The petitioners herein objected to the 4th respondent’s claim for a patta. The 3rd respondent by the order dated 31.07.1989 rejected the 4th respondent’s petition. Aggrieved, the 4th respondent preferred Inams Appeal No.1/89 u/sec. 7(2) of the Inam Abolition Act, 1956, to the 2nd respondent. By the order dated 30.09.1996 the 2nd respondent dismissed the appeal. The revision by the 4th respondent preferred u/Sec. 14-A of the Inams Abolition Act, 1956 was allowed by the 1st respondent and hence the writ petition. There is a protracted course of litigation preceding the impugned order. Reference to the several proceedings is relevant to the adjudication of the lis presented in this writ petition. Chronology of relevant events and proceedings :- (A) In 1136-F (about 1726 AD) the Zamindar of Pydipala Agraharam granted an inam of an extent of Ac. 410.57 cts (the schedule lands), in favour of the Uttaradhi Mutt (‘the Mutt’). In the year 1860 the inam was confirmed by the Inams Commissioner and a title deed No. 1905 was issued. (B) An enquiry u/Sec. 9(1)(3) of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (for short ‘the Estates Abolition Act, 1948’) was held in 1949 by the Settlement Officer, Vijayawada in SR No. 1/49 and an order dated 31.05.1950 was passed concluding that the grant in favour of the Mutt was of an ‘inam estate’ as defined u/Sec. 2(7) of the Estates Abolition Act, 1948. (C) The Mutt preferred an appeal u/Sec. 9(4) to the Estates Abolition Tribunal (EAT) Vizianagaram against the order of the Settlement Officer dated 31.05.1950, in AS No. 247/50. By the order dated 24.09.1952 the EAT allowed AS No. 247/50 and held that the grant in favour of the Mutt was not of a ‘inam estate’ as defined u/Sec. 2(7) of the Estates Abolition Act 1948. This order was not challenged and has become final. (D) In view of certain amendments including in 1956 to the provisions of Sec.3(2) of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates Land Act 1908 (for short ‘the Estates Land Act, 1908’) (amending the definition of the expression ‘estate’) the State Government referred the mater to the Assistant Settlement Officer, Kakinada, u/Sec. 9(3) of the Estates Abolition Act, 1948. By an order dated 31.05.1960 in S.R.No. 1/1959, the Assistant Settlement Officer, Kakinada held that the grant to the Mutt was not an ‘inam estate’, after duly considering the statutory amendments. Aggrieved thereby the Collector, E.G.District, preferred Tribunal Appeal No. 84/60 to the EAT (the District Judge), East Godavari at Rajahmundry. TA No. 84/60 was dismissed on merits by the order dated 11.09.1961 and has not been challenged. This order of the EAT dated 11.09.1961 has also thus become final. (E) The Inams Deputy Tahsildar, Peddapuram initiated proceedings under the provisions of the Inams Abolition Act, 1956 and issued a notice u/Sec.3 of the said Act. One Goli Rudraiah (the father of petitioner No.18 herein`) lodged objections to the proceedings by the Inam Deputy Tahsildar contending that the village is an ‘inam estate’ as defined u/Sec. 2(7) of the Estates Abolition Act, 1948. By the order dated 29.06.1962 the Inams Deputy Tahsildar, Peddapuram rejected the objections in view of the earlier orders of the EAT dated 24.09.1952 in AS No. 247/50 and the subsequent order dated 11.09.1961 in TA No. 84/60 – holding the grant in favour of the Mutt as not constituting ‘inam estate’. (F) The Government in Gazette No. 1763 dated 12.07.1962 notified that the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates Land (Reduction of Rent) Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Reduction of Rent Act, 1947’), would not apply to the schedule lands, in view of the order dated 31.05.1960 of the Assistant Settlement Officer, Kakinada as confirmed by the order of the EAT, Rajahmundry dated 11.09.1961 in TA No. 84/60. (G) In April 1964 the 4th respondent petitioned to the Tahsildar, Tuni, E.G. District (u/Sec. 7 of the Inam Abolition Act, 1956) for grant of a Ryotwari patta. Certain individuals (including Goli Rudrayya, the father of petitioner No.18 herein) lodged objections to this petition, claiming that they were not aware of the order dated 29.06.1962 of the Inams Deputy Tahsildar, Peddapuram and are hence not bound by it. By the order dated 23.08.1973 in Proceedings B-497/70 the Deputy Tahsildar, Tuni rejected the objections and granted ryotwari patta (No.22 in proceedings dated 24.08.1973) to the Mutt for the entire extent of Ac.410.57 cts. The objectors thereupon filed an Inam Appeal No. 1/73 before the R.D.O., Peddapuram (R-2 herein). By the order dated 30.12.1974 the 2nd respondent dismissed the appeal. The objectors, aggrieved by the preliminary and appellate orders, filed W.P.No. 3474/75. By the judgment dated 13.07.1977 a learned single Judge of this Court allowed the writ petition on the ground that the earlier order dated 29.6.1962 (of the Inams Deputy Tahsildar, Peddapuram) was not binding on the writ petitioners (objectors to the claim of the 4th respondent for patta). This court directed the Deputy Tahsildar, Peddapuram to enquire de novo u/Sec. 3 (of the Inams Abolition Act, 1956) to decide the question of possession and claim of the writ petitioners under the provisions of the said Act and thereafter to consider the claim for ryotwari patta by the Mutt u/Sec. 7 of the Act. The Mutt preferred W.A.No. 396/77. This appeal was dismissed on 12.12.1985. The learned Division Bench while dismissing the appeal directed the Deputy Tahsildar to dispose of the matter within six months from the date of the judgment. (H) Pursuant the judgment of this court in W.A.No. 396/77, the 3rd respondent took up the 4th respondent’s petition for grant of a patta. By the order dated 31.07.1989 the 3rd respondent rejected the 4th respondent’s petition. Thereagainst the 4th respondent preferred an appeal to the 2nd respondent u/Sec. 7(2) of the Inams Abolition Act, 1956. The 2nd respondent by the order dated 30.09.1996 dismissed Inam Appeal No.1/89. The 4th respondent thereupon preferred a revision to the 1st respondent, u/Sec. 14-A of this Act. The 1st respondent by the impugned order set aside the primary order of the 3rd respondent and the appellate order of the 2nd respondent dated 31.07.1989 and 30.09.1996 respectively and granted ryotwari patta to the 4th respondent, u/Sec. 7 of the Inams Abolition Act, 1956. The 1st respondent also granted liberty to the petitioners (respondents in the revision) to agitate for occupancy rights if so desired, before the appropriate authority under the Inams Abolition Act, 1956. The case of the petitioners in brief:- 1) They are residents of Pydipala Agraharam village which was originally a part of the Pithapuram estate, an estate under the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908. The lands in the village are inam lands and the Inams Commissioner notified the village as an inam village. 2) The judgment of the EAT in TA No.84/60 was not filed by the 4th respondent in the proceedings before the 3rd respondent whereat the 4th respondent sought grant of a patta. 3) On a true and fair interpretation of the recitals of the Sanad (the original grant of inam by the Zamindar) and the Inam Fair Register the grant was of “inam estate”. The 1st respondent acted without jurisdiction in reversing the well considered and legally sound conclusions of the primary and appellate authorities. The defense by the 4th respondent to the impugned order:- (A) The initial and subsequent orders of the EAT (dated 24.9.1952 in AS No.247/50 and 11.9.1961 in TA No.84/60) declaring that the grant of the schedule lands is not an inam estate, have become final. (B) The petitioners were aware of these orders of the EAT as early as in 1964 when objections were lodged to the 4th respondent’s claim (for a patta in its favour) but they yet took no steps to assail these orders. The earlier orders of the EAT in AS No. 247/50 and TA No.84/60 operate as res judicata against the petitioners. (C) Section 9(6) of the Estates Abolition Act, 1948 enjoins: Every decision of the Tribunal and subject to such decision, every decision of the Settlement Officer under this Section shall be binding on all persons claiming an interest in any land in the village, or hamlet or Khandriga granted as inam notwithstanding that any such person has not preferred any application or filed any statement or adduced any evidence or appeared or participated in the proceedings before the Settlement Officer or the Tribunal as the case may be. In view of the provisions of Sec.9(6), the finding (of the EAT dated 24.09.1952 in AS No.247/50; of the Assistant Settlement Officer, Kakinada dated 31.05.1960; and of the EAT dated 11.09.1961 in TA No. 84/60) that the grant in favour of the 4th respondent is not an “inam estate” is binding on all persons claiming any interest in any land in the village whether they preferred an application, filed any statement, adduced any evidence, appeared or participated in the proceedings before the Settlement Officer or the EAT (or not), as the case may be. The petitioners cannot therefore contend that the lands are “inam estate” within the meaning of the said expression under the Estates Abolition Act, 1948. (D) The order of the primary and appellate authorities (dated 31.07.1989 and 30.09.1996, are perverse. The 3rd respondent grossly misconstrued the recitals in the several columns of the Inams Fair Register extract and erroneously concluded that the grant was in favour of an individual and not in favour of the Mutt. The primary and appellate authorities also erred in observing that the non filing of the original grant by the 4th respondent invites the presumption u/Sec. 114 of the Evidence Act, that if it had been produced it would have shown that the grant is not in favour of the institution but an individual. This conclusion is at variance with the settled law on this aspect that in the absence of the record of an ancient grant, the Inams Fair Register extract is entitled to utmost importance and weight. The finding of the 2nd respondent appellate authority that the Mutt is entitled only to Melavaram rights and therefore not entitled for a patta, is also on the basis of a fundamental misconception. The appellate authority ignored the fact that the grant to the Mutt was recognized by the Government and title deed No. 1905 was issued as early as in 1860, conferring absolute rights to the Mutt. (E) The petitioners did not raise the plea that they were tenants of the land in any earlier proceedings. Such plea was not raised either while filing objections to the 4th respondent Mutt’s claim for a patta before the Inams Deputy Tahsildar, Peddapuram; before the R.D.O., Peddapuram in Inams Appeal No.1/73; in W.P.No. 2494/75; before the 3rd respondent; or even before the 2nd respondent in Inam Appeal No.1/89. There is also no evidence whatsoever on record that any of the petitioners were in possession of inam land as on 07.01.1948, the crucial date fixed under Inams Abolition Act, 1956 for grant of a patta, in their favour. (F ) Even if the petitioners are entitled to permanent occupancy rights u/Sec.10A they would continue to be tenants of the 4th respondent and liable to be evicted u/Sections 8(2) and 9 of Inams Abolition Act, 1956 and further the entitlement of the petitioners to permanent occupancy rights would not in any way affect the 4th respondent’s claim or entitlement for grant of ryotwari patta u/Sec. 7 of the Inams Abolition Act, 1956. The primary order of the 3rd respondent dated 31.07.1989 in Proceedings Rc.C1/88:- By this order the 3rd respondent rejected the 4th respondent’s petition (presented u/Sec. 7 of the Inams Abolition Act, 1956) for issue of a ryotwari patta. The petitioners (as respondents) objected (to the 4th respondents claim) contending that the schedule lands constitute an estate within the meaning of sec. 3(2) of the Estates Land Act, 1908; that they have rights of occupancy thereto; that the 4th respondent was not in possession of the land; that the earlier order of the Inams Deputy Tahsildar, Peddapuram dated 29.06.1962 was without notice to the objectors and therefore was not binding on them; and that they themselves are entitled for (ryotwari) pattas. The order of the 3rd respondent states and records that the 4th respondent had filed a Photostat copy of the Inam Fair Register in the proceedings. In the written arguments submitted on behalf of the respondents (petitioners herein) it was urged – (i) That Pydipala Agraharam is a part of the Pithapuram estate and the original Sanad (in favour of the 4th respondent) is not available on record; (ii) That the grant is of land in Zamindari village, what was granted to the inamdar was a right to collect the rents and there was no delivery of possession to the inamdar; (iii) The inamdar was stepping in the shoes of the estate holder; the village continued to be a zamindari village till its abolition and is not an inam village. The 3rd respondent held: (a) Since the Inams Commissioner confirmed the inam on 09.04.1860, the schedule lands are inam lands; (b) The schedule lands though not in an Inam estate in view of the decisions (of the EAT) in T.A.No. 84/60 and A.S.No. 247/50, continued to be a part of Zamindari village as defined under the Estates Abolition Act, 1948, whereunder the Pithapuram estate was taken over. It is a part of the estate even though the Pithapuram estate holder had granted only a specific extent to the Mutt; (c) As per the analysis of the Inam Fair Register, the grant is not in favour of an institution (i.e. the Mutt) but for the deity to be enjoyed by the priest till services are rendered. (d) That the 4th respondent would not come within the purview of an institution as defined u/Sec. 2(e), it cannot therefore claim grant of a ryotwari patta u/Sec.7; and the persons who are in occupation as tenants and their successors alone would be entitled to permanent occupancy rights u/Sec. 10A, of the Inams Abolition Act, 1956. The appellate order of the 2nd respondent dated 30.09.1996 in Inam Appeal No. 1/89:- The 2nd respondent ‘the Revenue Court’ dismissed the appeal preferred by the 4th respondent u/Sec. 7(2) of the Inams Abolition Act, 1956 (against the 3rd respondent’s order dt 31.7.1989). The appellate authority having noticed and recorded that the schedule lands are in Pydipala Agraharam village framed the following points as arising for consideration in the appeal: (i) Who is the grantee of the inam; (ii) Is it an institution or an individual; (iii) What was the grant; (iv) And to whom the village is granted to call it an ‘inam’. The 2nd respondent recorded that the original deed of grant was neither filed before the primary authority nor before it. The 2nd respondent referred to the extract of the Inam-B Register and proceeded to analyse its contents. According to the 2nd respondent, Col.2 of this Register records that the inam is a Devadayam inam; Col.8 records that the grant is for the daily offerings to the deity, Sri Rama Demudu in Uttaradhi Mutt for services performed; Col.10 records that the grant is for the duration the services are regularly performed; and Col. 13 records the name of the original grantee as Sri Matta Satya Prayatirdha Swamula Varu. The appellate authority also set out the notings in Col. 17 to 21 (of the Inam-B Register) as under: - The Agraharam can be confirmed permanently so long as the service entered in Col. 8 is rendered. The Manager or Priest has not yet sent his vakil. He seems not to be near remand. The original sonad having been deposited in the Collectors Cutcherry at sometime unknown, was sent to me. In the sannad it is plainly stated that the Agraharam was given for the services of Ramademudu and it could have been given for no other purpose, because the priest in Col. 13 was a sanyasi worshipping the deity Ramademudu. The sannad is not for a specified extent of land but for the whole village. In the account of F. 1208, 16 putties are 0-0-0 entered as the area of the Agraharam exclusive of poramboke of Inams. In the account of F. 1230 in which the name of the priest appears for the last item, it is entered as 51 putties as a revenue of 1000 Rs. is mally lavied on the Agraharam. It is likely that the actual extent is not 16 putties as stated in there accounts of F. 1208 but very nearly 51 putties. The Karnam is the Tanedar on behalf of the priest of the title deed can be given to (iy wqstorn). Sd/- xx xx xx Dy. Collector 19-4-60 Approved Sd/- xxxxx Inam Commissioner, T.D.No. 1905 The appellate order is very inelegantly drafted. It jumbles up the contentions of the parties, in particular the respondents (petitioners herein) and the conclusions of the appellate authority so inextricably that it is difficult to make out which are the contentions of the parties and which the appellate conclusions. After recording the contentions of the petitioners herein (respondents in the appeal – that they and their predecessors were enjoying the lands which devolved on them either by inheritance, sale, gifts or mortgages and that the 4th respondent never delivered the lands to the predecessors of these respondents nor changed the tenants nor did the 4th respondent ever have possession of the land), the appellate authority remarks that it is not the case of the appellant (R4 herein) that the tenants were not there for a long period both prior and subsequent to the coming into force of the Inams Abolition Act, 1956; it is not the case of the 4th respondent that it had inducted the tillers for the first time subsequent to the grant; to ascertain whether the inam is granted to an individual to perform certain duties or to a religious institution, the original grant should be filed and the non-filing of such document raises a presumption u/Sec. 114 of the Evidence Act that if produced the document would