Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

35. Further even the alleged sale documents have not been clearly proved by the plaintiff. Only photocopies were placed on record. It is pertinent to note that the originals of these documents were not produced before the court. It was contended that the originals have been lost. However no permission was sought by the plaintiff from the court to lead secondary evidence. The documents were not exhibited and were only marked as mark A (colly.). The documents comprise of Agreement to Sell, power of attorney, affidavit and receipt. The documents are not legible and are torn from various places and complete documents were not available. The said photocopies of the documents are not very legible and therefore it Page No: 18/31 is not possible to compare the signatures of Sh. Kali Charan on the said documents with the admitted signatures of Sh. Kali Charan.

37. A document can be proved by primary evidence i.e. producing the document itself and where the original has been lost, secondary evidence can be produced. However, permission to seek secondary evidence has to be sought from the court. Secondly the plea that the original document has been lost has to be clearly established and thereafter the photocopies have to be proved satisfactorily. Under section 65(c) of the Indian Evidence Act, Court would grant permission to lead secondary evidence only when it comes to a conclusion that the existence and execution of the original Page No: 19/31 document has been proved and it has been further established that the original document has been lost. Reference may be made to the judgments titled as Tilak Raj v. Janak Raj reported as 1998(2) R.C.R.(Civil) 348. Gurdial Kaur v. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab, reported as A.I.R. 2000 Punjab 82 and Rambhau Sadashivappa Jatkar v. Tryambak Shenfal Satbharkre reported as 2006(4) R.C.R. (Civil) 236.

38. As far as the first condition is concerned, no permission was sought from the court. The second condition is that the plaintiff should establish the existence of the original and the fact that the original has been lost. Neither the existence of the original has been satisfactorily established nor the loss has been proved. The plaintiff/PW-1 stated at the time evidence on 07.05.2005 that the documents were lost 5/6 years back. However, in the pleadings it has been stated that original documents have been misplaced and report in this respect was lodged by the plaintiff on 13.11.1998 with Seelam Pur police station. No details have been given as to how these documents were lost.

40. Now let us come to the contents of the said complaint mark-B. It has been stated in the said complaint that Urmila Devi had purchased one house on 07.01.1991 and had got prepared one GPA in that respect. It was further stated that the original registry of the said house is missing. However, the plaintiff Urmila Devi is having one photocopy of the said registry and further that the factum regarding loss of original GPA be Page No: 21/31 registered. A bare perusal of this complaint shows that it has not been mentioned that as to when and under what circumstances the original documents were lost. The complaint only talks about one GPA. However plaintiff has placed on record, copy of one agreement to sell, receipt and affidavit also. The factum of loss of this agreement to sell, receipt and affidavit has not been mentioned in the said complaint. The complaint is extremely vague. The contents of the complaint have also not been proved by the plaintiff in her evidence also. Again under what circumstances the said documents were lost has not been stated in the evidence.