Law: Punjab Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1887)

Section: 44

Law: Evidence Act (I of 1872)

Section: 35,114

(a) Punjab Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1887)--------   ------S. 44--- Mutation-Does not form part of Record of Rights-Entries in register of mutations duly sanctioned but not incorporated in Record of Rights-Relevant as evidence under S. 35, Evidence Act, 1872 but carry no presumption of truth either under S. 44, Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 or S. 114, Evidence Act, 1872-Transfer evidenced by mutation-Initial onus lies on person claiming under mutation-Evidence Act (I of 1872), Ss: 35 & 114, illus. (e).   The entries in a duly sanctioned mutation not incorporated in a Record of Rights or annual record have no presumption of the correctness of the facts mentioned in them. At best these are relevant under section 35 of the Evidence Act. They are admissible as evidence in the case and they do no more. They are entitled to weight depending upon the circumstances of each case. It may turn out that they are in accord with the general bulk of evidence on the record. But it would be incorrect to suppose that they are sufficient themselves to place the initial onus of proof on the party disputing their correctness. It is for the party who relies on any admission recorded in the order of the Revenue Officer sanctioning the mutation to prove that admission is affirmatively against its maker both as regards the identity of the maker and the contents of the statement attributed to him. This admission has to be proved like any other fact in issue. The proceedings relating to mutation are not covered by section 44, Punjab Land Revenue Act under which a presumption of truth may be drawn regarding entries in the Record of Rights. It is wrong to suppose that merely because there is a mention in the order of attesting officer that the vendor has consented to a sale, the onus of proof that he did not do so, lies originally on the person who disclaims the same. The onus lies on the person, who seeks to establish the genuineness of the transfer. In case he adduces enough evidence to shift the onus to the person disclaiming it, the latter would be under a duty to adduce evidence to rebut the case so made out.   Gharib Khan v. Sikandar 91 P R 1902 distinguished.…