{"id":257373,"date":"1977-01-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1977-01-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sita-ram-bhau-patil-vs-ramchandra-nago-patil-dead-by-l-on-20-january-1977"},"modified":"2016-03-23T15:52:25","modified_gmt":"2016-03-23T10:22:25","slug":"sita-ram-bhau-patil-vs-ramchandra-nago-patil-dead-by-l-on-20-january-1977","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sita-ram-bhau-patil-vs-ramchandra-nago-patil-dead-by-l-on-20-january-1977","title":{"rendered":"Sita Ram Bhau Patil vs Ramchandra Nago Patil (Dead) By L. … on 20 January, 1977"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Sita Ram Bhau Patil vs Ramchandra Nago Patil (Dead) By L. … on 20 January, 1977<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1977 AIR 1712, 1977 SCR (2) 671<\/div>\n
Author: A Ray<\/div>\n
Bench: Ray, A.N. (Cj)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSITA RAM BHAU PATIL\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nRAMCHANDRA NAGO PATIL (DEAD) BY L. Rs. & ANR.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT20\/01\/1977\n\nBENCH:\nRAY, A.N. (CJ)\nBENCH:\nRAY, A.N. (CJ)\nBEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH\nKAILASAM, P.S.\n\nCITATION:\n 1977 AIR 1712\t\t  1977 SCR  (2) 671\n 1977 SCC  (2)\t49\n\n\nACT:\n\t    Bombay  Tenancy  & Agricultural Lands   Act\t  1948--Sec.\n\t76--Power  of Revenue Tribunal to interfere with findings of\n\tfact.\n\t    Indian  Evidence Act<\/a>--Sec. 17-Admissibility\t aid   rele-\n\tvance of admission--Entries in record of  right--Presumptive\n\tvalue.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\t    The\t appellant was owner of the suit land.\t The  appel-\n\tlant's wife sold this land to respondent No  1.\t Thereafter,\n\tthe  appellant\tmade  an  application under s. 70(b) of\t the\n\tBombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, for a  decla-\n\tration\tthat  he was a tenant of two of the 4 plots  of\t the\n\tland.  The dispute went up to the Maharashtra Revenue Tribu-\n\tnal  who  rejected the claim of the  appellant\tto  tenancy.\n\tThereafter,  the respondent filed an application under\tsec-\n\ttion  70(b) of the said Act praying for a  declaration\tthat\n\tthe  appellant was not a tenant in respect of the  remaining\n\ttwo  survey  numbers also.  The respondent alleged  that  he\n\tnever  leased the land to the appellant and that he came  to\n\tknow  of  the entry of the record of rights  for  the\tyear\n\t1955-56\t  on  the strength of mutation alleged to have\tbeen\n\tmade on 30.1.1966.  The respondent was cross-examined and it\n\twas suggested to him that he had made an admission in previ-\n\tous deposition although the said deposition was not shown to\n\tthe respondent.\t After the cross-examination of the respond-\n\tent  was over, a certified copy of the said  deposition\t was\n\tplaced on record.  Thereafter the appellant was examined and\n\the  relied  on\tthe extract of the record  of  rights.\t The\n\tMamlatdar rejected the claim of the appellant to be a tenant\n\twhich was confirmed by the Deputy Collector.  The  Maharash-\n\ttra  Revenue  Tribunal held in exercise\t of  its  revisional\n\tpowers\tthat the appellant was proved to be a tenant of\t the\n\tland  and set aside the concurrent findings of the  two\t au-\n\tthorities below. In a writ petition filed by the  respondent\n\tunder Art. 227<\/a> of the Constitution the High Courts set aside\n\tthe order of the Revenue Tribunal.\n\tDismissing the appeal by Special Leave,\n\t    HELD : 1. Admission on which reliance has been placed by\n\tthe appellant suffers from 3 infirmities:\n\t(i)  Earlier  deposition  related to  two  different  survey\n\tnumbers.  Whatever was stated about another survey number is\n\tirrelevant  and\t inadmissible.\t Since under s.\t 17<\/a>  of\t the\n\tIndian\tEvidence  Act an admission is a statement,  oral  or\n\tdocumentary, which suggests any\t inference as to any fact in\n\tissue or relevant fact.\n\t(ii) In fact there was no admission in the earlier  proceed-\n\tings; and\n\t(iii)  The deposition was not brought to the notice  of\t re-\n\tspondent  when he was being cross-examined.   Privy  Council\n\thas laid down in the case of Bal Gangadhar Tilak that before\n\tany  person is to be faced with any statement he  should  be\n\tgiven  an opportunity to see  that statement and  to  answer\n\tthe statement.\t[673 E, 674 A-C, 675 A-E]\n\t    Bal\t Gangadhar Tilak v. Shrinivas Pandit<\/a> 42\t Indian\t Ap-\n\tpeals 135 at page 147, applied.\n\t    2.\tThere is a presumption about the correctness of\t the\n\trecord\tof  rights. However, there is no abstract  principle\n\tthat  whatever will appear in the Record of Rights  will  be\n\tpresumed to be correct.\t In the present case it is shown  by\n\tevidence that the entries are not correct.  [676 B-D]\n\t672\n\t    3.\tUnder  section 76<\/a> of the Act power  of\tTribunal  to\n\tinterfere is  limited. There was no error of law on the face\n\tof the record.\tIf the authority entrusted with adjudication\n\tgoes  into the question and assesses the same, the  decision\n\tmay  'be  right or wrong but that will not go to  show\tthat\n\tthere  is any error of law on the face of record.   [676  E,\n\t677 A-B]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\tCIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1997 of 1968.
\n\t    Appeal  by\tSpecial Leave from the\tJudgment  and  Order
\n\tdated  the 13th February, 1968 of the Bombay High  Court  in
\n\tSpecial Civil Application No. 643 of 1967.
\n\tB.N. Lokur and A. G. Ratnaparkhi for the Appellant.
\n\tS.V. Gupte, R.B. Datar and Sanjeev Kumar for Respondents.
\n\tThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n\t    RAY,  C.J.\t This appeal by special leave  is  from\t the
\n\tjudgment dated 13 February 1968of the High Court of Bombay.
\n\t    The\t appellant was owner of land covered by\t Survey\t No.
\n\t201\/2, 194\/13, 200\/29 and 194\/15.  The appellant’s wife sold
\n\tthis land to respondent No. 1 on 14 June 1946.
\n\t    On\t12 April 1962 the appellant  made   an\t application
\n\tunder’\tsection 70(b) of the Bombay Tenancy &\tAgricultural
\n\tLands  Act (hereinafter referred to as the Bombay Act) for a
\n\tdeclaration that he was a tenant of two of the four plots of
\n\tland namely,  Survey  Nos. .194\/15 and 200\/29.\tThis dispute
\n\tbetween\t the  appellant\t and  the respondent  in  regard  to
\n\talleged tenancy claim for these two  survey numbers went  up
\n\tto the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal.  The Tribunal by  order
\n\tdated 19 March, 1954 rejected the claim of the appellant  to
\n\ttenancy in respect of the land covered by Survey Nos. 200\/29
\n\tand 194\/15.\n<\/p>\n
\t  Thereafter  the  respondent  filed an\t application  on  24
\n\tJanuary\t 1963  under section 70(b) of the Bombay Act  for  a
\n\tdeclaration that the appellant was not tenant of the remain-
\n\ting two Survey Nos.201\/2 and 194\/13. The respondent  alleged
\n\tthat  he  never leased the land to the appellant.   The\t re-
\n\tspondent  further said that he came to know about  entry  in
\n\tthe  record of rights for the years 1955-56 on the  strength
\n\tof mutation alleged to have been made on 30 January 1956 and
\n\tsanctioned  on\t13 November 1956.  This application  of\t the
\n\trespondent was resisted by the appellant on the ground\tthat
\n\the was tenant of these two survey Nos. 201\/2 and 194\/13.
\n\t    The\t matter\t was heard by the Mamlatdar.  By  an   order
\n\tdated  31 July 1963 the Mamlatdar rejected the claim of\t the
\n\tappellant to be. a tenant.  Thereafter the matter was  taken
\n\tup  to the District Deputy Collector.  The Deputy  Collector
\n\tby  his\t order\tdated 27 June 1966  upheld  the\t Mamlatdar’s
\n\torder.\t Before the Mamlatdar and the Deputy  Collector\t the
\n\trespondent examined himself.  He was cross examined and\t his
\n\tattention was drawn in cross examination towards an  alleged
\n\tadmission about the appellant being his tenant in the  depo-
\n\tsition.\t recorded by the Tenancy Aval Karkun in\t an  earlier
\n\tcase  on 10 September 1962.  The respondent denied  that  he
\n\tmade.any  admission.  The previous deposition was not  shown
\n\tto him on that day.\n<\/p>\n
\t673<\/span><\/p>\n
\t    On 9 July 1963 a certified copy of the deposition in the
\n\tearlier proceedings was placed on record.  On that very\t day
\n\tthe. appellant examined himself, saying that he was a tenant
\n\tof the land and he had no other evidence to show in  support
\n\tof his case except the certified copy of the statement which
\n\twas produced on that day.\n<\/p>\n
\t    The appellant also relied on the extracts of the  record
\n\tof  rights showing that the respondent was shown as  ‘Kabze-
\n\tdar’  of  Survey Nos. 201\/2 and the appellant was  shown  as
\n\ttenant of the same.  In regard to Survey No. 194\/13 it\talso
\n\tappeared  from the record of rights that the respondent\t was
\n\tshown as ‘kabzedar’ and the appellant as a tenant.
\n\t    On\tthis evidence the Mamlatdar held that the  appellant
\n\twas not Cultivating the lands as a tenant of the  respondent
\n\tand  he declared that the appellant was not a  tenant.\t The
\n\tDeputy ColleCtor affirmed the order of the Mamlatdar.
\n\t   The\tMaharashtra  ReVenue Tribunal however by  its  order
\n\tdated  9 January 1967 held that the appellant was proved  to
\n\tbe  a tenant of the land. The respondent thereupon took\t the
\n\tmatter to the High Court under Article 227.<\/a>  The High  Court
\n\tset aside the order of the Revenue Tribunal.  The  appellant
\n\tobtained special leave from this Court.\n<\/p>\n
\tOn behalf of the appellant three contentions were  advanced.
\n\tFirst,\tthat the respondent was bound by his admission\tthat
\n\tthe  appellant is a tenant.  Second, there is a\t presumption
\n\tof  the correctness  of\t the record of rights under  section
\n\t135-J  of  the Bombay Land Revenue Code\t 1879.\t Third,\t the
\n\tMaharashtra Revenue Tribunal was justified in setting  aside
\n\tthe findings of fact of the Mamlatdar and the Deputy Collec-
\n\ttor because of error of law.\n<\/p>\n
\t    The\t admission  on\twhich reliance has  been  placed  by
\n\tcounsel\t for the appellant suffers from\t three\tinfirmities.
\n\tIn  the\t deposition of the respondent in  Tenancy  Case\t No.
\n\t6\/61-62\t dated 10 September 1962, the respondent  gave\tevi-
\n\tdence  in regard to dispute between the respondent  and\t the
\n\tappellant  in  relation\t to Survey Nos.\t 200\/29\t and  194\/15
\n\trespondent said that he never kept the appellant as a tenant
\n\ton   the land.\tIn  cross  examination\tit   was   suggested
\n\tto   the  respondent that the land bearing Survey No.  201\/2
\n\tbelonged  to  the  respondent and that the  appellant  is  a
\n\ttenant in the land.  The respondent said as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t    “The land Survey No. ‘201\/2 situate in Balkum belongs to
\n\tme  in Balkum.\tThe applicant is a tenant in the said  land.
\n\tI do not take the rent in respect of the said land  ……..
\n\tI have prior to\t 15-20 years purchased this land from  Sita-
\n\tram Bhau.  Even the land bearing S. No. 201\/2 was  purchased
\n\tright  from him.  I have never cultivated the land  bearings
\n\tS.  No. 201\/2.\tIt was barren at that time.  When this\tland
\n\twas to be acquired I learnt whether Sitaram Bhau was  culti-
\n\tvating this land  ….\tor whether his name has been entered
\n\tas  a tenant against this land(?)  I cannot say as to  whose
\n\tland  is around the land      beating S. No. 201\/2 or  other
\n\tLand.”\n<\/p>\n
\t674<\/span><\/p>\n
\t    This  evidence read in its entirety is not an  admission
\n\tat  all.   A  person who says that ‘I have  taken  no  rent’
\n\tobviously says that there is no relationship of landlord  or
\n\ttenant.\n<\/p>\n
\t  The  first infirmity in regard to this admission  is\tthat
\n\twhatever was said by the respondent in regard to Survey\t No.
\n\t201\/2  is irrelevant and inadmissible in the  deposition  of
\n\tthe  respondent\t in  that case.\t Section 17<\/a>  of\t the  Indian
\n\tEvidence Act states that ‘An admission is a statement,\toral
\n\tor documentary, which suggests any inference as to any\tfact
\n\tin  issue or relevant fact, and which is made by any of\t the
\n\tpersons,  and  under  the  circumstances,  hereinafter\tmen-
\n\ttioned’.  In regard to dispute between the appellant and the
\n\trespondent  arising  out of Survey No.\t194\/15\tand  200\/29,
\n\tSurvey\tNos. 201\/2  and 194\/13 were neither issues  in\tfact
\n\tnor relevant fact.\n<\/p>\n
\t    The\t second infirmity against this admission being\tused
\n\tagainst the respondent is that as long as the respondent was
\n\tunder  cross examination, it was not brought to his  notice.
\n\tIt  is\tsaid  by counsel for the appellant  relying  on\t the
\n\tdecision of this Court in Bharat Singh and Anr. v.  Bhagira-
\n\tthi reported in 1966(1) S.C.R. 606, that this  admission was
\n\tproved by the appellant and this admission on the ruling  Of
\n\tthe  decision of this Court (Supra) is substantive  evidence
\n\tand is therefore admissible against the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t      The  decision of this Court in Bharat  Singh’s
\n\t\t      case (Supra) is that:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t       “Admissions have to be clear if they are\t  to
\n\t\t      be   used\t against  the  person  making  them.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t      Admissions  are substantive evidence by  them-
\n\t\t      selves,  in view of ss. 17<\/a> & 22<\/a> of the  Indian
\n\t\t      Evidence\tAct, though they are not  conclusive
\n\t\t      proof of the matters admitted.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t      Admission\t proved are said in the decision  to
\n\t\t      be
\n\t\t\t    “admissible\t evidence  irrespective\t  of
\n\t\t      whether the party making them appeared in\t the
\n\t\t      witness box or not and whether the party\twhen
\n\t\t      appearing\t as  witness was   confronted\twith
\n\t\t      those  statements in case it made a  statement
\n\t\t      contrary\tto those admissions”.\n<\/p>\n
\t    Counsel for the appellant submitted that  the   respond-
\n\tent  even though not confronted with the admissions would be
\n\tbound\tby  his admissions and the appellant would be  enti-
\n\ttled to rely on the admissions as admissible.  There is\t the
\n\tobservation  in\t the  very next sentence  in  the  aforesaid
\n\tdecision  of this Court that “the purpose  of  contradicting
\n\tthe  witness under section 145<\/a> of the Evidence. Act is\tvery
\n\tmuch different from the purpose of proving .the\t admission”.
\n\tIt,  therefore., follows that admission is relevant  and  it
\n\thas to be proved  before  it becomes evidence.
\n\t    If\tadmission  is proved and if it is thereafter  to  be
\n\tused  against the party who has made it the  question  comes
\n\twithin the  provisions\tof Section 145<\/a> of the Evidence\tAct.
\n\tThe provisions\tin  the\t Indian Evidence Act<\/a> that ‘admission
\n\tis not conclusive proof’ are to be considered in regard\t ,to
\n\ttwo  features  of  evidence.  First, what weight  is  to  be
\n\tattached to an admission ?  In order to attach weight it has
\n\tto
\n\t675<\/span>
\n\tbe found out whether the admission is clear, unambiguous and
\n\tis a relevant piece of evidence.  Second, even if the admis-
\n\tsion  is  proved in accordance with the\t provisions  of\t the
\n\tEvidence  Act<\/a> and if it is to be used against the party\t who
\n\thas  made it, “it is sound that if a witness is under  cross
\n\texamination  on oath, he should be given an  opportunity  if
\n\tthe  document  are  to be used against him,  to\t tender\t his
\n\texplanation  and to clear up the point of ambiguity or\tdis-
\n\tpute.\tThis  is a general salutary and\t intelligible  rule”
\n\t(see  Bal  Gangadhar Tilak v. Shrinivas\t Pandit<\/a>\t  42  Indian
\n\tAppeals\t 135 at page 147).  The Judicial  Committee in\tthat
\n\tcase  said,  “it  has to be observed with  regret  and\twith
\n\tsurprise that the general principle and the specific  statu-
\n\ttory provisions have not been followed”.  The general  prin-
\n\tciple  is  that before\tany person is to be faced  with\t any
\n\tstatement  he  should be given an opportunity  to  see\tthat
\n\tstatement and to answer the  same.  The\t specific  statutory
\n\tprovision is contained in Section 145<\/a> of the Indian Evidence
\n\tAct  that  “A witness may be cross-examined as\tto  previous
\n\tstatements  made by him in writing or reduced into  writing,
\n\tand   relevant\tmatters in question,  without  such  writing
\n\tbeing shown to him or being proved; but if it is intended to
\n\tcontradict  him by the writing, his attention  must,  before
\n\tthe  writing can be proved, be called to those parts  of  it
\n\twhich are to be used for the purpose of contradicting  him”.
\n\tThe fore, a mere proof of admission, after the person  whose
\n\tadmission is alleged to be has concluded his evidence,\twill
\n\tbe of no  avail\t a cannot be utilised against him.
\n\t    The\t third\tinfirmity with regard to this  admission  is
\n\twhether this is a clear and unequivocal admission.  The High
\n\tCourt  said  that”a  certified copy of\tthe  deposition\t was
\n\tplaced\ton  record on 9 July 1973, on which day\t against  it
\n\tdoes  not  appear that the contents of the  deposition\twere
\n\tread  out to the respondent or that any attempt was made  to
\n\tobtain\tleave  of  the Court to further\t cross\texamine\t the
\n\twitness.” .The contents of the’ alleged admission .to  which
\n\treference  has been made are not unambiguous and  cannot  be
\n\taccepted  as an admission.The contents are that he  was\t not
\n\treceiving any rent and\tthe land was fallow.  Therefore, the
\n\tHigh  Court was right in rejecting the contentions  advanced
\n\tby  the appellants that there was any admission and in\tset-
\n\tting aside the decision of the Revenue Tribunal.
\n\t    The\t second’  contention on behalf of the  appellant  is
\n\tthat the certain record of rights relied on by the appellant
\n\twould establish\t that the appellant was a tenant.  The\tHigh
\n\tCourt’\trightly\t accepted the contention of  the  respondent
\n\tthat after a careful consideration of the evidence on record
\n\tthe fact finding courts, i.e. the Mamlatdar and the  Special
\n\tDeputy\tCollector recorded a finding that the appellant\t had
\n\tnot  cultivated\t the land in dispute as the  tenant  of\t the
\n\trespondent.  Therefore the Revenue Tribunal had no jurisdic-
\n\ttion to interfere and set aside the finding of fact.
\n\t    As\tto  the record of rights it appears  that  the\tHigh
\n\tCourt  referred to two important features.  It is true\tthat
\n\tthe record of rights relate to Survey Nos. 201\/2 and  194\/13
\n\tand there is mention of the appellant as  tenant.  There  is
\n\talso  a reference to the mutation proceedings. The  name  of
\n\tthe respondent is shown as  Kabjedar.  Two  of the
\n\t9–112SC1\/77
\n\t676<\/span>
\n\timportant  heads in the record are ‘Mode’ and ‘Crops &\tfal-
\n\tlows’.\tThe Mode is shown as “I” and under Crops and fallows
\n\tentry  ‘Paddy’\tis shown.  The High Court referred  to\tthis
\n\tfeature\t of  the record of rights Mode “I”  means  that\t the
\n\trespondent  cultivated as owner of the land that  was  never
\n\teven  case of the appellant.  The High Court   rightly\tsaid
\n\tthat  the  irresistible\t conclusion therefore  is  that\t the
\n\textracts from the record of rights contain entries which  do
\n\tnot  have any relation to true facts.  If that is the  posi-
\n\ttion  with regard to these extracts, these cannot be  relied
\n\ton  for inference that actually the land was cultivated\t and
\n\tpaddy crops were grown on the said land.\n<\/p>\n
\t    With  regard  to the record of rights  counsel  for\t the
\n\tappellant  said that presumption arises with regard  to\t its
\n\tcorrectness.   There is no abstract principle that  whatever
\n\twill  appear in the record of rights will be presumed to  be
\n\tcorrect\t when it is shown by evidence that the\tentries\t are
\n\tnot  correct.\tApart  from the intrinsic  evidence  in\t the
\n\trecord\tof rights that they refer to facts which are  untrue
\n\tit also appears that the record of rights have reference  to
\n\tthe mutation entry that was made by the Circle Officer on 30
\n\tJanuary 1956.  Counsel for the respondent rightly  contended
\n\tthat no presumption could arise for  two principal  reasons.
\n\tFirst, the oral evidence in this case nullified the entries.
\n\tin  the record of rights as showing a state of\taffairs\t op-
\n\tposed  to the real state of affairs and, second,  no  notice
\n\twas  ever given to the\trespondent with regard\tto  mutation
\n\tproceedings.  Therefore the respondent is right in  contend-
\n\ting that no presumption can validly arise from the record of
\n\trights.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe  third  contention on behalf of the appellant  that\t the
\n\tTribunal was justified to interfere because of error of\t law
\n\tis also unacceptable. The provisions contained in section 76
\n\tof  the Bombay Act enumerate the grounds on which there\t can
\n\tbe  revision by the Revenue Tribunal. One of the grounds  is
\n\tthat  there  is\t ‘error of law’.  In the  present  case\t the
\n\tmanner in which the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal entertained
\n\tthe revision was by holding, as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t   “There  is  evidence that  the  applicant
\n\t\t      (meaning\tthereby the appellant) has  been  in
\n\t\t      actual  possession  of  land   since   1956-57
\n\t\t      onwards”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\tHowever, the authorities below have rejected the entries  as
\n\twell  as  the opponents’ (meaning  thereby  the\t respondent)
\n\tadmission  on the ground that the applicant did not  support
\n\tthe  entries by producing the  rent receipts.  According  to
\n\tthe  authorities  below the burden was on the  applicant  to
\n\tprove  his  case by producing evidence\tto  corroborate\t the
\n\tentries.  The appellate authority has also observed that the
\n\talleged\t admission of the opponent, made in the\t other\tcase
\n\twas rejected by the Revenue Tribunal.  The authorities below
\n\tarrived\t at the conclusion that the  applicant’s  possession
\n\twas  otherwise than lawful.  This concurrent finding of\t the
\n\tauthorities below is being challenged  by  the applicant  in
\n\tthis revision application.”\n<\/p>\n
\t    The Revenue Tribunal seemed to consider the approach  of
\n\tthe  a\tMamlatdar and the Deputy Collector to  be  erroneous
\n\tbecause\t according  to the Revenue Tribunal the\t burden\t was
\n\tshifted to the respondent
\n\t677<\/span>
\n\tto  rebut  the entry in the record of rights and  .that\t the
\n\trespondent failed to discharge that burden.  When the entire
\n\tevidence is  before  the Court, it is well settled that\t the
\n\tburden of proof becomes immaterial.\n<\/p>\n
\t    Further  the Revenue Tribunal fell into error of  enter-
\n\ttaining\t the Revision when there was no error of law on\t the
\n\tface of the  record. The presumption which was said to arise
\n\tin  the record of rights was before the Deputy Collector  as
\n\twell  as  the Mamlatdar.  If the  authority  entrusted\twith
\n\tadjudication  goes into the question and assesses the  same,
\n\tthe  decision may be right or wrong but that will not go  to
\n\tshow that there is any error of law on the fact of record.
\n\t    All\t the  three contentions advanced by  the   appellant
\n\tfail.\tThe  appeal is for the foregoing  reasons  dismissed
\n\twith costs.\n<\/p>\n
\tP.H.P.\t\t\t\t\t       Appeal\tdis-\n\tmissed.\n\t678<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Sita Ram Bhau Patil vs Ramchandra Nago Patil (Dead) By L. … on 20 January, 1977 Equivalent citations: 1977 AIR 1712, 1977 SCR (2) 671 Author: A Ray Bench: Ray, A.N. (Cj) PETITIONER: SITA RAM BHAU PATIL Vs. RESPONDENT: RAMCHANDRA NAGO PATIL (DEAD) BY L. Rs. & ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT20\/01\/1977 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-257373","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nSita Ram Bhau Patil vs Ramchandra Nago Patil (Dead) By L. ... on 20 January, 1977 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sita-ram-bhau-patil-vs-ramchandra-nago-patil-dead-by-l-on-20-january-1977\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sita Ram Bhau Patil vs Ramchandra Nago Patil (Dead) By L. ... on 20 January, 1977 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sita-ram-bhau-patil-vs-ramchandra-nago-patil-dead-by-l-on-20-january-1977\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1977-01-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-23T10:22:25+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sita-ram-bhau-patil-vs-ramchandra-nago-patil-dead-by-l-on-20-january-1977#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sita-ram-bhau-patil-vs-ramchandra-nago-patil-dead-by-l-on-20-january-1977\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sita Ram Bhau Patil vs Ramchandra Nago Patil (Dead) By L. … on 20 January, 1977\",\"datePublished\":\"1977-01-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-23T10:22:25+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sita-ram-bhau-patil-vs-ramchandra-nago-patil-dead-by-l-on-20-january-1977\"},\"wordCount\":2722,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sita-ram-bhau-patil-vs-ramchandra-nago-patil-dead-by-l-on-20-january-1977#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sita-ram-bhau-patil-vs-ramchandra-nago-patil-dead-by-l-on-20-january-1977\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sita-ram-bhau-patil-vs-ramchandra-nago-patil-dead-by-l-on-20-january-1977\",\"name\":\"Sita Ram Bhau Patil vs Ramchandra Nago Patil (Dead) By L. ... on 20 January, 1977 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1977-01-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-23T10:22:25+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sita-ram-bhau-patil-vs-ramchandra-nago-patil-dead-by-l-on-20-january-1977#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sita-ram-bhau-patil-vs-ramchandra-nago-patil-dead-by-l-on-20-january-1977\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sita-ram-bhau-patil-vs-ramchandra-nago-patil-dead-by-l-on-20-january-1977#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sita Ram Bhau Patil vs Ramchandra Nago Patil (Dead) By L. … on 20 January, 1977\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Sita Ram Bhau Patil vs Ramchandra Nago Patil (Dead) By L. ... on 20 January, 1977 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sita-ram-bhau-patil-vs-ramchandra-nago-patil-dead-by-l-on-20-january-1977","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sita Ram Bhau Patil vs Ramchandra Nago Patil (Dead) By L. ... on 20 January, 1977 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sita-ram-bhau-patil-vs-ramchandra-nago-patil-dead-by-l-on-20-january-1977","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1977-01-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-23T10:22:25+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sita-ram-bhau-patil-vs-ramchandra-nago-patil-dead-by-l-on-20-january-1977#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sita-ram-bhau-patil-vs-ramchandra-nago-patil-dead-by-l-on-20-january-1977"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sita Ram Bhau Patil vs Ramchandra Nago Patil (Dead) By L. … on 20 January, 1977","datePublished":"1977-01-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-23T10:22:25+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sita-ram-bhau-patil-vs-ramchandra-nago-patil-dead-by-l-on-20-january-1977"},"wordCount":2722,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sita-ram-bhau-patil-vs-ramchandra-nago-patil-dead-by-l-on-20-january-1977#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sita-ram-bhau-patil-vs-ramchandra-nago-patil-dead-by-l-on-20-january-1977","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sita-ram-bhau-patil-vs-ramchandra-nago-patil-dead-by-l-on-20-january-1977","name":"Sita Ram Bhau Patil vs Ramchandra Nago Patil (Dead) By L. ... on 20 January, 1977 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1977-01-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-23T10:22:25+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sita-ram-bhau-patil-vs-ramchandra-nago-patil-dead-by-l-on-20-january-1977#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sita-ram-bhau-patil-vs-ramchandra-nago-patil-dead-by-l-on-20-january-1977"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sita-ram-bhau-patil-vs-ramchandra-nago-patil-dead-by-l-on-20-january-1977#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sita Ram Bhau Patil vs Ramchandra Nago Patil (Dead) By L. … on 20 January, 1977"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/257373","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=257373"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/257373\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=257373"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=257373"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=257373"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}