Issue for consideration
Whether the High Court was correct in holding that owing to the non-production of any document by appellant evincing as to how the sons’ of the seller obtained the suit property in a partition Exhibit A1-registered sale deed whereby the property was sold to the appellant’s vendor, being a registration copy-secondary evidence, could not be admitted in evidence as proof of the contents of its original. Evidence Act, 1872 – s. 65(e), 74, 76, 77 and 79 – Registration Act, 1908 – s. 57(5) – Admissibility in evidence of certified copies in property matters – Certified copy of the sale deed executed in favour of appellant’s vendor-Exhibit A-1, produced by the appellant, if admissible in evidence for the purpose of proving the contents of its original document: Held: Certifi ed copy issued thereunder is not a copy of the original document, but is a copy of the registration entry which is itself a copy of the original and is a public document u/s. 74(2) of the Evidence Act and 75(5) thereof, makes it admissible in evidence for proving the contents of its original – Thus, the cumulative effect of the provisions of the Evidence Act and s. 57(5) of the Registration Act would make the certified copy of the sale deed produced as Ext.A1 admissible in evidence for the purpose of proving the contents of the said original document – Thus, the finding of the High Court that the certified copy of Ext.A1 owing to the failure in production of the original and proving through an independent witness is inadmissible in evidence, is legally unsustainable – Acceptance of the admissibility of Ext.A1 found in favour of the appellant by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court was in tune with the provisions – Once the title of appellant’s vendor acquired under Ext.A1 sale deed is established and purchase of the same property by the appellant, under Ext.A5 registered sale deed is upheld by the High Court there was no reason or justifi cation to interfere with the concurrent judgments of the courts below – Since sale deed legally establishes the contents of the original sale deed the same should confer the right over the entire property to the appellant – Thus, no ground to sustain the reversal of the concurrent judgments of the courts below by the High Court in exercise of the power u/s. 100 CPC, as no ground justifying such exercise exists – Judgment of the High Court is set aside and that of the appellate court confirming the judgment and decree of the trial court is restored – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s. 100. [Paras 21, 29, 33 and 34]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India.
Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs),
CC BY 4.0.
