Summarize the following court judgment. 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. B.N. Lokur and A. G. Ratnaparkhi for the Appellant. S.V. Gupte	 R.B. Datar and Sanjeev Kumar for Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAY	 C.J. 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. 201/2	 194/13	 200/29 and 194/15. 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 70(b) 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. 194/15 and 200/29. 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. 200/29 and 194/15. Thereafter the respondent filed an application on 24 January 1963 under section 70(b) of the Bombay Act for a declaration that the appellant was not tenant of the remain ing two Survey Nos.201/2 and 194/13. 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. 201/2 and 194/13. 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 made.any 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. 201/2 and the appellant was shown as tenant of the same. In regard to Survey No. 194/13 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. 6/61 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. 200/29 and 194/15 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. 201/2 belonged to the respondent and that the appellant is a tenant in the land. The respondent said as follows: "The land Survey No. '201/2 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. 201/2 was purchased right from him. I have never cultivated the land bearings section No. 201/2. 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. 201/2 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. 201/2 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. 194/15 and 200/29	 Survey Nos. 201/2 and 194/13 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 1966(1) S.C.R. 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 that"a 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	 i.e. 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. 201/2 and 194/13 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 112SC1/77 676 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. P.H.P. Appeal dis missed.

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 70(b) 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 70(b) 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 30.1.1966. 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]