Revenue entries cannot defeat established title unless the State proves a valid lease and proprietary claim with admissible evidence.

Title to land could not be displaced by revenue entries or mere payment of rent where the State failed to prove a valid lease or proprietary right. The Court noted that the land had been purchased in auction in 1859 and that the Settlement Commissioner's final order recorded the absence of any lease deed and rejected the revenue assessment. Revenue record entries were treated as rebuttable presumptions, not title deeds, and could not by themselves establish Nazul land, a fixed-term tenancy, or a State reversionary right. The plaintiff's prior title and possession were therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the State had proved that the suit land was Nazul land held by the plaintiff's predecessor only as a lessee, and whether the entries in the revenue record could displace the title claimed on the basis of prior auction purchase and the final order of the Settlement Commissioner.

Analysis: The land was shown to have been purchased in auction in 1859 and the plaintiff and his predecessor remained in possession thereafter. The order of the Settlement Commissioner dated 30.10.1922 had recorded that no lease deed was available and that the assessment made by the revenue authority could not be sustained, and that finding had attained finality. Revenue entries, though relevant under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, are not documents of title and carry only a rebuttable presumption. The State produced no lease deed, and the existence of a lease had to satisfy the legal requirements of Sections 105 and 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Mere payment of rent or a revenue entry could not create or extinguish title, nor could it establish a right of reversion in the State.

Conclusion: The State failed to prove that the land was Nazul land or that the plaintiff's predecessor held it only as a fixed-term lessee; the plaintiff's title and possession were upheld.

Final Conclusion: The decree of dismissal was set aside and the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff, with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: Entries in revenue records and payment of rent do not, by themselves, prove State title or displace an otherwise established title unless the alleged lease and the State's proprietary claim are proved by legally admissible evidence.

---