An entry in a Record of Rights and that the tenant claimed to hold adversely to the landlord of an assertion of adverse title. [ Sohawa Singh v. Kesar Singh , 1932 L 586, per Bhide, J.]. A draft Record of Rights is admissible to rebut the presumption of the correctness of Record of Rights [ Chand Roy v. Bhagawati Charan Goswami, 2 P 314], though itself it carries no presumption of correctness and can be used merely to show the nature of the entry before the final publication. [ Hardeo Narayan Singh v. Kapil Singh , 108 IC 417].
Settlement records [ Raja Brajaasunder Deb v. Raja Rajindranarain, 1941 P 260 (such record carries a presumption of correctness), e.g., settlement pedigrees [ Sarfaraz Khan v. Rajano , 112 IC 834], settlement khewate [ Pratap Chandra Deo Dhabal Deb v. Jagdish Charan Deo Dhabal Deb , 1925 C 116], settlement khataunis [ Shinner v. Chandan Singh , 31 A 247], and village notes prepared by Settlement Officers [ Ghasi Sahu v. Shib Sahu , 1942 P 140], are relevant under this section; so are jamabandis [ Taru Patu v. Abinash Chunder Dutt , 4 C 79], boundary papers [ Haradas Acharjya Chowdhury v. Secretary of State, 43 IC 361], fards bachh [ Malik Mahmud v. Khushi Ram , 131 IC 638: 1931 L 605], fards riwaj bhaoli [ Sheo Prasad Singh v. Lal Babu , 39 IC 505; Tulsi Mahton v. Jhandoo Pandey , 38 IC 176], and other revenue records. [ Ghulam Rasul Khan v. Secretary of State , 86 IC 654 ; Maung Po Lun v. Ma E Mai, 1923 R 57].
A survey record is properly admissible in evidence and an entry in it carries a presumption of correctness which may, however, be rebutted by contrary proof. [ Kumar Kama Khya Narain Singh v. Ashiman Singh, 1934 PC 182]. An abadi khasra prepared by the Amin when the s ub- d ivisonal Officer ordered a survey of the cultivated area of the village at the instance of the Nazul Officer is admissible under section 35, Evidence Act. [ Phakkar v. Pragi , 154 IC 570].
Sifton's Settlement Report containing the statement that " dwami thicas" being in their origin cultivating tenancies, are by custom, non-transferable, is admissible in evidence of proof of the custom of the non- transferability of "dwami thicas." [ Somar Ram v. Budh Ram, 171 IC 115]. The proceeding is possible to prove admission embodied in the decision. [ Kheda Mahto v. Khonka Mahto, 1939 P 591].