DEVI SINGH versus BOARD OF REVENUE FOR RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

DEVI SINGH versus BOARD OF REVENUE FOR RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

The Board of Revenue erred in invoking Section 221 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, to set aside its confirmed appellate decree and direct retrial, since such superintendence power cannot be used to override its own final judgment merged by the doctrine of merger. The appreciation of both documentary and oral evidence showing continuous possession sufficed to sustain the appellants' khatedari claim.

Parties
Appellant: Devi Singh; Respondents: Board of Revenue for Rajasthan and Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
12 October 1993
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment in Writ Petitions; Supreme Court Decision on Appeal
Outcome
Appeals allowed; orders of the High Court set aside
Legal Topics
Possessory Rights, Appellate Jurisdiction, Doctrine of Merger, Appreciation of Evidence, Powers of Superintendence
Land Law Tenancy Law Civil Procedure Possessory Rights Appellate Jurisdiction Doctrine of Merger Appreciation of Evidence Powers of Superintendence

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Devi Singh

Appellant

Board of Revenue for Rajasthan and Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment in Writ Petitions; Supreme Court Decision on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether oral evidence can substitute for missing jamabandi record under Section 5(4) of the Rajasthan Zamindari and Biswedari Abolition Act, 1959
  2. 2 Whether Board of Revenue could invoke general superintendence under Section 221 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 to set aside decrees which it had confirmed on appeal
  3. 3 Applicability of the doctrine of merger to revenue proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The Board of Revenue erred in invoking Section 221 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, to set aside its confirmed appellate decree and direct retrial, since such superintendence power cannot be used to override its own final judgment merged by the doctrine of merger. The appreciation of both documentary and oral evidence showing continuous possession sufficed to sustain the appellants' khatedari claim.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed; orders of the High Court set aside

Orders

  • Judgment and order of the High Court set aside
  • Matters settled in favour of the appellants