Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, claiming to be the adopted son of Dhansingrao, filed a suit in 1972 seeking a declaration that a sale deed executed by his adoptive father in favor of respondent No.1 was bogus, void, and illegal. Respondent No.1 raised a plea that he was a tenant of the suit land. The matter was referred to the tenancy authorities. The Tahsildar, by order dated 9.7.1976, held that respondent No.1 was not a lawful tenant on or before 9.1.1969. Respondent No.1 appealed to the Sub Divisional Officer, who by order dated 29.10.1994 allowed the appeal and set aside the Tahsildar's order, recording a finding that respondent Nos.1 and 2 were tenants. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition challenging the Sub Divisional Officer's order. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the Tahsildar's order was based on proper consideration of material, while the Sub Divisional Officer's order was perverse and based on no evidence. The court noted that the petitioner's claim of adoption was not proved. The court held that the Sub Divisional Officer had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal as the order of the Tahsildar was not appealable. The court set aside the order of the Sub Divisional Officer and restored the order of the Tahsildar. The writ petition was allowed.
Headnote
A) Tenancy Law - Burden of Proof - Tenant Status - The burden lies on the person claiming tenancy to prove that he was a lawful tenant on the relevant date. The Tahsildar's finding that respondent No.1 was not a tenant was based on evidence and not perverse. (Paras 1-3) B) Adoption - Proof - Strict Evidence Required - The petitioner claiming to be an adopted son must prove adoption by cogent evidence. The court found that the petitioner failed to discharge this burden. (Para 1) C) Civil Procedure - Concurrent Findings - Interference Limited - The High Court in writ jurisdiction will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. (Para 3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondent No.1 was a lawful tenant of the suit land on or before 9.1.1969 and whether the petitioner is the adopted son of Dhansingrao.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order of the Sub Divisional Officer dated 29.10.1994, and restored the order of the Tahsildar dated 9.7.1976.
Law Points
- Burden of proof on tenant to establish tenancy
- Adoption must be proved by strict evidence
- Concurrent findings of fact not interfered with unless perverse
