' This is a revision against the order of the Additional Commissioner who rejected the appeal of the petitioner.
2. Facts of the case in brief are that one Mithan Shah, father or the respondent sold S. No, 436/2 and 2A through registered sale-deed dated 21-1 1956 to the petitioner and one Sawan in equal share.
According to the contention of the petitioner in fact S. Nos. 446/2 and 2-A were sold and not 436/2 and 2-A which were entered into registered deed through mistake. The mutation was made in the record of rights according to the contents of the registered deed. The appellant being aggrieved with the above mutation order, filed an appeal before the Additionol Deputy Commissioner who ordered correction of S. No, in the registered sale-deed. Accordingly the mutation was corrected in the year 1962. The respondents went in appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad, who remanded the case to the Additional Deputy Commissioner for fresh decision after hearing the parties. After introduction of Settlement Scheme the appeal was ultimately transferred to the Extra-Assistant Settlement Officer who decided the case in favour of the respondents. The appellant being aggrieved by that order filed an appeal with the Addl. Deputy Commissioner which was rejected as being time-barred. The appellant then filed revision before the Member, Board of Revenue, who remanded the case to the Additional Deputy Commissioner for fresh decision after hearing the parties The Additional Deputy Commissioner after hearing the parties rejected the appeal. The petitioner went to the Additional Commissioner in second appeal which was also rejected.
3. Mr. Habibullah Memon, Advocate for the petitioner contends that the deceased father of the respondent sold S Nos. 446/2 and 7-A but it was only through mistake that S. No, 436/2, 2-A were shown in the registered deed. In fact, 436/2 exists in the record but not S. No, 436/2-A. When this mistake came to notice of the petitioner in 1961-62, he moved an applicatton and the then Additional Deputy Commissioner. Mr. Habibullah Memon ordered for the correction in the Revenue record. However, during the subsequent proceeding that order was revised as has been pointed out in the preceding para. The respondent had partitioned the land where S. No, 436 was shown while S. Nos. 446/2 and 2-A was not partitioned simply because they stood sold by the father of the respondents in 1956. Had S. Nos. 446/2 and 2-A not been sold by the father of the respondent, it would have come in the partition. Since the petitioner was in possession of S. Nos. 446/2 and 2-A this was a mere ambiguity that could be resolved by extraneous evidence and the Revenue authorities could direct correction of the S. Nos. Mentioned in the registered deed.
4. Mr. Aftab Akhund, Advocate for the respondent, on the other hand, contends that this Court was not competent to interpret the documents nor could the petitioner be allowed to lead any evidence in this Court with regard to interpolation in registered deed. Section 93 of the Evidence Act debars acceptance of oral evidence in face of the conclusive documentary evidence. Since S. No, 436/2, 2-A have been clearly mentioned in the registered deed, the Revenue Court cannot order its substitution by another S. No, which will amount to absolutely separate transaction and will be against the contents of the registered deed. To contradict this position Mr. Habibullah Memon stressed that the Revenue Court were concerned with the factum of possession and possession of S. Nos. 446/2 and 2-A has been with the petitioner from 1956.
5. The main point involved in this case is that whether the Revenue Courts have powers to accept oral evidence or admit extreneous evidence to change the property which stands clearly in the registered deed. This I feel the Revenue Courts are not competent to do. The Revenue Courts A are to mutate the Khata in accordance with the entries made in registered deed. If any body wants rectification of the registered document he shall have to go to Civil Court which alone is competent to decide such matters. The legal position being such, I maintain the orders of the lower Courts and reject the revision petition.