Himachal Land Revenue Act, 1954: ss. 32(2)(a) , 34 – Recordof-rights and periodical record – Presumption in favour of entries therein – Rebuttal of – Held: Presumption of truth attached to the record-of-rights can be rebutted only if there is a fraud in the entry or the entry was surreptitiously made or that prescribed procedure was not followed – Reliance cannot be placed on the oral evidence to rebut the statutory presumption as the credibility of oral evidence vis-a-vis documentary evidence is at a much weaker level – Burden of proving relationship of tenancy is on the person who asserts such a relationship as per s. 109 of the Evidence Act – On facts, no relationship of landlord and tenant is mentioned in the revenue record – In the absence of entry in the revenue record, which is also expected to contain the entry of rent and possession, the tenancy cannot be treated to be in existence only on the basis of oral evidence – Burden of proving the relationship was on the defendant – Presumption of truth attached to the revenue record can be rebutted only on the basis of evidence of impeccable integrity and reliability – Defendant failed to rebut the presumption of truth on the basis of reliable, trustworthy and cogent documentary evidence to prove the relationship of a tenant – High Court erred in allowing the defendant’s appeal relying upon oral evidence to rebut the statutory presumption of truth attached to the revenue record – Order of the High Court is set aside and the judgment passed by the first appellate court is upheld.