Exchange transferee rights prevail over fiscal revenue entries where title defect and absence of tenancy are established.

An admitted exchange of lands, coupled with defect in title and resulting deprivation, attracted Section 119 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, requiring restoration of the transferred property or its equivalent. A revenue entry was only a fiscal record and could not displace the admitted exchange arrangement, especially where no rent was paid and there was no evidence of tenancy. The possession was therefore held to be under the exchange transaction and not as a tenant-at-will, and the contrary appellate and High Court findings were set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was in possession of the disputed land as an exchange transferee in consequence of compensation for the loss suffered due to defect in title, or merely as a tenant-at-will.

Analysis: The admitted exchange of lands, the defect in the first respondent's title, and the consequent deprivation of the appellant's land attracted Section 119 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, under which the party responsible for the defect was liable to restore the thing transferred or its equivalent. The revenue entry relied upon by the appellate court was only a fiscal entry and could not by itself displace the admitted exchange arrangement, especially when no rent had been paid and there was no evidence of tenancy. The appellate court's reliance on the patwari entry, in disregard of the admitted facts and the exchange transaction, was erroneous.

Conclusion: The appellant was in possession under the exchange arrangement and not as a tenant-at-will; the appellate decree and the High Court's dismissal were unsustainable and were set aside.

---