Revenue Entry Not Set Aside By Competent Authority Can't Be Treated As Forged Merely On Allegation: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has held that a revenue entry which has not been cancelled, corrected or set aside by a competent revenue authority or court, cannot be treated as forged merely because the opposite party alleges forgery. It held that though such an entry does not by itself create title, its evidentiary effect cannot be ignored altogether, and a party relying on its falsity must...
The Allahabad High Court has held that a revenue entry which has not been cancelled, corrected or set aside by a competent revenue authority or court, cannot be treated as forged merely because the opposite party alleges forgery.
It held that though such an entry does not by itself create title, its evidentiary effect cannot be ignored altogether, and a party relying on its falsity must establish the same before the competent forum.
Justice Anil Kumar-X held,
“A revenue entry may not, by itself, create title, but an existing and unchallenged entry cannot be treated as forged or wiped out from consideration merely on the basis of an allegation made by the opposite party. Its evidentiary value has to be assessed in the context of the entire evidence on record.”
Plaintiff sued for permanent injunction restraining the Kanpur Development Authority from interfering with his possession over House No. 127/W/1807-A and Arazi No. 1807, measuring 23 bighas and 12 biswas, at Village Juhi Kala, Kanpur. He claimed the land under a lease deed dated 07.05.1945 executed by the erstwhile Zamindar, Late Smt. Shiv Rani Kunwar, and pleaded possession since 01.07.1952.
The Authority denied the lease deed as forged and pleaded that Arazi No. 1807 had been acquired pursuant to Award No. 1 dated 16.10.1958, possession having been taken on 18.10.1958. The other defendants pleaded that the plaintiff had got his name recorded by practising fraud.
The Trial Court held that the alleged forgery of the entries in the plaintiff's favour had not been proved and that acquisition of the disputed land was not established, paragraph 17 of the award referring only to two bighas of Arazi No. 1807. It found the lease deed to be of no legal value, but decreed the suit in respect of the two-room construction, over which possession was found established.
In appeal, the Authority argued that once the lease deed was found not to confer title, subsequent revenue entries could not supply the foundation of the plaintiff's claim, and that no injunction could issue without a declaration of title.
Referring to Supreme Court's judgment in Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LRs. & Ors., the Court observed that a declaration is necessary only where the denial of title raises a cloud over it. It observed that the Fasli 1356 entry in favour of the plaintiff's predecessor existed prior to the acquisition and had never been cancelled, while the Fasli 1394 entry relied on by the Authority was found to relate to a different Mohal. The source of an entry and its continued existence, the Court held, are distinct matters.
On possession, the Court held that the notice issued by the Authority itself requiring removal of the construction amounted to an admission of its existence at the site claimed by the plaintiff, corroborated by the Commissioner's report and the statement of D.W.-1.
Holding that the decree stood confined to the portion over which possession was found established, the Court held,
“In a suit for permanent injunction, where the plaintiff establishes his possession and the defendant fails to establish a better right to interfere with such possession, the relief cannot be denied merely because the plaintiff has not obtained a declaration of title, particularly when the existing revenue entry in his favour continues to hold the field.”
Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.
Case Title: Kanpur Development Authority v. Sri Nathu Lal Gupta And Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 656
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 656