An illegal revenue entry cannot create tenancy rights in favour of a caretaker.

The plaintiff, Jagan Nath, instituted a suit in 1977 seeking declaration of ownership, permanent injunction and, alternatively, possession of the suit land.

He alleged that the defendant, Om Prakash, had merely been appointed as caretaker while the plaintiff and his father were residing away from the village, but had, in collusion with revenue officials, procured revenue entries showing himself as a tenant.

The defendant claimed that he had been inducted as a tenant by the plaintiff’s father and had consequently acquired proprietary rights under the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act.

The trial Court decreed the suit for possession on 23.03.1982. After an earlier appellate remand concerning civil-court jurisdiction, the District Judge, on 22.02.2008, affirmed the trial Court’s findings.

Whether the first appellate Court committed a jurisdictional or legal error in disregarding the additional evidence, Ex. A-1 to Ex. A-13, and whether the presumption attached to the continuity of revenue entries stood rebutted by the plaintiff’s evidence.

Whether the concurrent findings that the defendant was not a tenant were erroneous, perverse, or based on misreading of the oral and documentary evidence.

Whether the defendant’s entry as a tenant in the Khasra Girdawari, made without following the prescribed revenue procedure, could create valid tenancy or proprietary rights.

Whether the defendant, being established as a caretaker or agent, could claim any independent right, title or interest in the suit land.

The Court applied Section 38 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, which restricts alteration of record-of-rights and periodical records except on the basis of proved or admitted facts, agreement of the parties, or a binding decree or order.

It relied on clauses 8.15 and 9.8 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Records Manual, requiring due inquiry and reasonable opportunity of hearing before altering entries relating to possession, rent or tenancy.

The Court held that tenancy is founded on a bilateral agreement and cannot be inferred merely from an unauthorised revenue entry.

It further applied the principle that a caretaker, servant or agent holds possession on behalf of the owner and acquires no proprietary or possessory interest irrespective of the duration of occupation, relying on Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes v. Erasmo Jack de Sequeira, 2012 (5) SCC 370, and the principles stated therein from Puran Singh v. State of Punjab and Mahabir Prasad Jain.

Finally, under Section 100 CPC, interference with concurrent findings of fact is permissible only in cases involving perversity, misapplication of mandatory law, inadmissible evidence or findings unsupported by evidence; the Court relied on Navaneethammal v. Arjuna Chetty, Kondiba Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai Sopan Gujar, Naresh v. Hemant, Gurdev Kaur v. Kaki and Brij Narayan Shukla v. Sudesh Kumar.

The Court found that the defendant’s own admissions and letters, Ex. DW-1/A to Ex. DW-1/N, showed that he was managing the land and reporting its cultivation, repairs and produce to the plaintiff’s father—conduct consistent with that of a caretaker or manager, not an independent tenant.

The defendant produced no rent receipts or written tenancy agreement, and his witnesses could not establish payment of rent or a valid induction into tenancy.

The 1976 Khasra Girdawari entry was held unreliable because the mandatory procedure under clause 9.8 of the Land Records Manual and Section 38 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act had not been followed; the plaintiff was neither associated with the inquiry nor afforded an opportunity of hearing.

Since the foundational tenancy entry was illegal, subsequent revenue entries showing the defendant as owner could not carry a presumption of truth.

The Court also held that the concurrent factual findings were supported by the evidence and disclosed no perversity or substantial error of law warranting interference under Section 100 CPC.

It held that the revenue entries and additional documents did not establish a valid tenancy or proprietary rights, that the defendant was only a caretaker whose possession was unauthorised, and that the concurrent findings of the Courts below were neither perverse nor legally erroneous.

The regular second appeal was accordingly dismissed, along with pending applications, and the decree in favour of the plaintiff for possession was affirmed.