Legal Thesaurus

Wajibularz

In Avadh Kishore v. Ram Gopal [1979 SC 8611 (Para 20], the Supreme Court laid it down “Wajibularz is village administration paper prepared with due care and after due enquiry by a public servant in the discharge of his official duties. It is a part of the settlement record and a statutory prosecution of correctness attached to it.” An entry with regard to a custom prevailing in a particular locality, contained in a book complied by an officer under the order of the government is admissible under this section and is prima facie evidence of the existence of the custom recorded therein. [Tula Ram Sah Jagati v. Shyam Lal Sah Thulgharia, 86 Ic 729]. The wajibularz is a village administration paper prepared by a village official in which are recorded the statements of persons possessing interest in the village, relative to existing rights and customs. [Murtaza Husain Khan v. Mohammad Yasin Ali Khan, 1916 PC 89; See also Madari Singh v. Nazim Ali, 105 IC 24 : 1927 O 540].

It is intended to be an official record of the local customs of the district, [Uman Parshad v. Gandharp Singh, 14 IA 127 (PC)]. And as such, is admissible in evidence [ Parbati Kunwar v. Chandrapal Kunwar, 4 IC 25 (PC)] under this section. [Mst. Prem Jagat Kuer v. Hrihar Baksh Singh, 1946 O 163; Mehdi Hasan Subedar v. Abdul Wahid, 101 IC 820 : 1927 O 608; Baji Nath Singh v. Bahadur Singh, 91 IC 583 : 1926 O 101; Parbhu Narain Singh v. Jitendra Mohan Singh, 1948 O 307].

The wajibularz is a part of the record-of-light. It is unnecessary to produce any witness to prove the waibularz. It is a public document and is admissible in evidence without any formal proof. [Fajju v. Sirya, 170 IC 392]. Even if the officer compiling the wajibularz does not expressly record his opinion as to the existence of a certain custom, but merely records the statements of the zamindars and attests them by his signature or places them in the government record he should be presumed to have been satisfied as to the existence of the alleged custom. [Lekhraj Kaur v. Mahipal Singh, 7IA 63 (PC)]. And the wajibularz would be admissible under section 35, Evidence Act, 1872].

Leave a Comment