Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

15. That principle no doubt will apply where there is no explanation regarding the loss of the original document. There can be no doubt that secondary evidence of the contents of a document, which has not been proved to be lost, cannot be permissible. Moreover, for the purposes of the Indian Stamp Act, proper stamp duty and penalty can be recovered only on the original document, and not on a copy.

16. In Probadha Gaolini v. Banka Behari, AIR 1933 Cal 196, Patterson, J., held that a suit under Section 77 of the Registration Act was not tenable to enforce registration of a document which had been tampered with. It is true that no SUIt to enforce registration of a document which has been tampered with would be tenable, as the registering officer himself has no jurisdiction to decide whether the document is a genuine or a tampered document. But, the question is the present case is whether the document was a tempered one. It is significant to note that the document was intact when it was produced before the Sub-Registrar. Similarly, it was in tact when the suit was filed. A portion of the document disappeared after it was produced : the Court.

19. So far as the powers of the Civil Court in trying the suit are concerned, it cannot be disputed that the procedure is governed by the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, the Indian Evidence Act and other analogous Acts. The restrictions that are placed on the registering officer by virtue of provisions of the Registration Act can in no case be said to be applicable to the Civil Court, as the procedure in the Civil Court is governed by the special provisions of Acts contained in the statute. However, I am in entire agreement with the view expressed in the above noted cases that the registering officer in no case has jurisdiction to register a copy of a document. What he can register is only the original deed. Similarly, as laid down by Their Lordships of the Privy Council, copies of original documents cannot be required to be properly stamped, nor can they be validated. But, where the original document was before the registering officer and a suit under Section 77 of the Registration Act is filed and the original document is lost while in, the custody of the Court, can the Court be said to be powerless to decide whether the order of the registering officer refusing registration was correct or otherwise. In such a case, I am of opinion that if the Court is satisfied that the original document was intact and had been produced before the registering officer and the same is lost while in the custody of the Court after the riling of the suit, the Court certainly will have the power to admit secondary evidence of the contents of the document and to decide whether the refusal of the registering officer was justified. Of coarse, J quite realise that some difficulties arise in a case of the present kind, where a part of the original document is still on record, while the second sheet of the original document is missing. But, further I am of opinion that if the Court is convinced on the strength of the secondary evidence that a document of the kind was in fact executed by the executant, which conclusion the executant is unable to establish as vitiated, the Court could certainly decide the question of correctness of the order of the registering officer and grant a decree for registration, if it is satisfied that the document was a genuine one and had in fact been executed.

20. The further question arises in such a case whether a party can file a suit under Section 77 of the Registration Act, or the only remedy is to file a suit for specific performance of the contract of sale. In this connection, I might observe that Their Lordships of the Privy Council in Tulsi Ram Lala v. Ram Saran Das, AIR 1925 PC 80 have laid down that once a document is filed in Court and is lost while in the custody of the Court, secondary evidence of the contents of the document would be admissible. Therefore, in my opinion, the real distinction is that a registering officer undoubtedly will have no jurisdiction to direct registration of a copy of a document. But, if on the other hand, the document in original has been produced before the registering officer and also in Court and is thereafter lost, tile Court cannot be precluded from admitting secondary evidence of the contents of the document and to grant a decree for registration, if it is otherwise satisfied about the genuineness of the document.

21. So far as the present case is concerned, I have no doubt that the Civil Court has the power to admit secondary evidence of the contents of the original document and to reconstruct the document as such, and to grant a decree for registration, if the Court upholds the plaintiffs contention on merits. Therefore, had the original document been tampered with or had the original document been lost before its presentation before the registering officer, no suit under Section 77 of the Registration Act could have been filed, as the registering officer himself would be incompetent to order registration of a copy. But, under the circumstances, as detailed above, I am of opinion that the present suit was tenable when it was filed; and as the original document was subsequently lost while in the custody of the Court, that fact alone cannot render the suit untenable, which was originally tenable. For this purpose, the Civil Court has all the powers conferred by the different statutes to act in the interest of justice and to grant a decree for registration.