Can evidentiary value of intermediate record be denied or ignored in a title suit?

Rajib Cumer Deb: When establishing the issue of title in a title suit, the intermediate record (SA/RS) is generally regarded as possessing less inherent value compared to the most recent record (BS record). To be detailed in determining the question of title in a title suit, intermediate record (SA/RS) is considered to have less presumptive value than that of the latest one (BS record).

But sometimes presumption may be rebutted if the legal implications of the intermediate record, its formal verification process, and the extent of alignment with subsequent documents will serve as the criteria for assessing its evidentiary weight in resolving disputes within the title suit.

However, their admissibility and importance in determining title ownership can be subject to scrutiny and evaluation by the court, depending on various factors such as their authenticity, accuracy, relevance, and compliance with legal procedures.

To resolve the immediate issue, the legal ramifications of the interim record (SA/RS) must be considered in line with the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act 1950. Prior to this assessment, it must be established that during the handling of the pertinent lawsuit, no contradictory evidence has been presented to challenge the interim record or deny its existence. Additionally, no evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the interim record is not in effect or has been invalidated by a court of law. Furthermore, the trial court should adhere to the presumption of authenticity outlined in sections 76 and 79 of the Evidence Act, 1872, while also acknowledging its accuracy in accordance with sections 17 and 144A of the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, 1950.

If we look into the history of State Acquisition Survey, we find that the Provincial Government of the Pakistan took decision to acquire the interest of the rent-receivers for the purpose of creating relations between tenants and the government directly under the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act 1950. To give effect to the decision the government acquired the interest of the rent-receivers by notification in the official gazette under section 3 of the SAT Act in 1956. After acquiring the interest of the rent-receivers the government conducted a survey for the assessment of compensation payable to the rent-receivers under section 17 of the SAT Act 1950 and this survey is called SA survey (Intermediate record). This survey was conducted within the time from 1956 to 1964 through province wise state acquisition settlement and SA khatian was prepared in the name of the respective tenants directly under the government and the Act provides for a process of updating khatian in the name of persons by transfer.

If a subsequent deed is discovered in the records, through which the SA recordee transferred the land documented in the intermediate record (SA), and it is established that throughout the lawsuit, no challenge has been made against this transfer deed. Moreover, no contradictory evidence has been presented to refute its existence or to establish that the transfer ded is not in effect. Additionally, no court has declared it as void, and it has been formally verified that the transfer deed has been lawfully executed and registered in accordance with the provisions outlined in Section 59 and 60 of the Registration Act, 1908, as well as Section 79 and 114(e) of the Evidence Act, 1872.

In accordance with Section 76, 79, or 90 of the Evidence Act, 1872, the trial court may presume the authenticity of the certified or original copy of the transfer deed. It can rule that the transfer deed is pertinent and admissible in resolving the disputes under Section 5 of the Evidence Act, 1872. Moreover, all statements contained within the said document shall be binding upon the involved parties.

Considering the provisions delineated in Section 3 and 17 of the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, 1950, along with the explanations provided earlier, should the trial court ascertain any correlation between the statements within the intermediate record and those contained in the transfer deed, it holds the authority to infer that the recordee of the intermediate record directly became a tenant under the government. Furthermore, it may presume continuous possession from the inception of the said Act and the transformation into a rent rayatee. Additionally, the trial court can presume that the corresponding SA khatian serves as evidence of the continuous possession by its recordee concerning the land in question, and that their interest rightfully passed to their successors.

Consequently, the presumptive value assigned to the intermediate record would diminish the evidentiary weight of the most recent record (BS khatian) in the absence of evidence demonstrating its superior title.

Writer: Rajib Cumer Deb; Senior Assistant Judge, Cumilla.