Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent vehemently contended that there is no infirmity in the impugned order and the same does not need any interference by this Court. Learned counsel submitted that even though the documents are private documents but record kept in the office of Sub-Registrar is a public record of said private document, certified copies of the same are admissible documents. Learned counsel further submitted that under Section 74 of the Evidence Act, it has been clearly specified that where a document, a part thereof is a public document within the meaning of the Section, it does not require any further proof. It is also settled principle of law that when documents are tendered in evidence and marked as exhibits, three types of objections could be taken, viz,

(i) Objection to the document purely on ground of absence/insufficiency of stamp duty. (ii) Where a document is by itself admissible in evidence but the objection is directed towards the mode of proof alleging the same to be irregular or insufficient. (iii) Objection that document sought to be produced in evidence is ab initio inadmissible in evidence in terms of the relevant statutory provisions, for instance under the provisions of Registration Act, 1908 or the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1588 of 2019 dt.22-05-2025 The objections taken by the defendant/petitioner does not fall within any of the three categories. Learned counsel further submitted that Section 65 of the Evidence Act has no relevance so far as applicability of Section 74 of the Evidence Act is concerned. The learned counsel relied on the decision of Appaiya Vs. Andimuthu @ Thangapandi & Ors., reported in AIR 2023 SC 4810 in support of his contention that in similar manner objection was taken that the document produced i.e., Exhibit-A1 was only certified copy of the sale deed and its original was not produced in evidence, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the document in question was certified copy of a registered sale deed, falling within the definition of a public document, the question is whether there exists any law declaring such certified copy of document as admissible in evidence for the purpose of proving the contents of the original documents and answered the question relying on Section 57(5) of the Registration Act that provides certified copy given under Section 57 of the Registration Act shall be admissible for the purpose of proving the contents of its original document. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further noted that certified copy issued thereunder is not a copy of original document but is a copy of registration entry which is itself a copy of the original and is a Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1588 of 2019 dt.22-05-2025 public document under Section 74(2) of the Evidence Act. Thus, learned counsel submitted that present petition is devoid of any merit and the same be dismissed.

"29. Having regard to all the aforesaid circumstances and in the light of the various provisions of the Evidence Act mentioned hereinbefore we will firstly consider the question whether the appellant/plaintiff had succeeded in proving the contents of Ext.A1. Going by Section 65(e) when the original of a document is a public document within the meaning of Section 74, secondary evidence relating its original viz., as to its existence, condition or contents may be given by producing its certified copy. Ext.A1, Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1588 of 2019 dt.22-05-2025 indisputably is the certified copy of sale deed No. 1209/1928 dated 27.08.1928 of SRO Andipatti. In terms of Section 74(2) of the Evidence Act, its original falls within the definition of public document and there is no case that it is not certified in the manner provided under the Evidence Act. As noticed hereinbefore, the sole objection is that what was produced as Ext.A1 is only a certified copy of the sale deed and its original was not produced in evidence. The hollowness and unsustainability of the said objection would be revealed on application of the relevant provisions under the Evidence Act and the Registration Act, 1908. It is in this regard that Section 77 and 79 of the Evidence Act, as extracted earlier, assume relevance. Section 77 provides for the production of certified copy of a public document as secondary evidence in proof of contents of its original. Section 79 is the provision for presumption as to the genuineness of certified copies provided the existence of a law declaring certified copy of a document of such nature to be admissible as evidence. When that be the position under the aforesaid provisions, taking note of the fact that the document in question is a registered sale deed, falling within the definition of a public document, the question is whether there exists any law declaring such certified copy of a document as admissible in evidence for the purpose of proving the contents of its original document. Sub-section (5) of Section 57 of the Registration Act is the relevant provision that provides that certified copy given under Section 57 of the Registration Act shall be admissible for the purpose of proving the contents of its original document. In this context it is to be noted that certified 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 under Section 74(2) of the Evidence Act and Sub-section (5) thereof, makes Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1588 of 2019 dt.22-05-2025 it admissible in evidence for proving the contents of its original ................................................ ..............................................................."
"29. Having regard to all the aforesaid circumstances and in the light of the various provisions of the Evidence Act mentioned hereinbefore we will firstly consider the question whether the appellant/plaintiff had succeeded in proving the contents of Ext.A1. Going by Section 65(e) when the original of a document is a public document within the meaning of Section 74, secondary evidence relating its original viz., as to its existence, condition or contents may be given by producing its certified copy. Ext.A1, indisputably is the certified copy of sale deed No. 1209/1928 dated 27.08.1928 of SRO Andipatti. In terms of Section 74(2) of the Evidence Act, its original falls within the definition of public document and there is no case that it is not certified in the manner provided under the Evidence Act. As noticed hereinbefore, the sole Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1588 of 2019 dt.22-05-2025 objection is that what was produced as Ext.A1 is only a certified copy of the sale deed and its original was not produced in evidence. The hollowness and unsustainability of the said objection would be revealed on application of the relevant provisions under the Evidence Act and the Registration Act, 1908. It is in this regard that Section 77 and 79 of the Evidence Act, as extracted earlier, assume relevance. Section 77 provides for the production of certified copy of a public document as secondary evidence in proof of contents of its original. Section 79 is the provision for presumption as to the genuineness of certified copies provided the existence of a law declaring certified copy of a document of such nature to be admissible as evidence. When that be the position under the aforesaid provisions, taking note of the fact that the document in question is a registered sale deed, falling within the definition of a public document, the question is whether there exists any law declaring such certified copy of a document as admissible in evidence for the purpose of proving the contents of its original document. Sub-section (5) of Section 57 of the Registration Act is the relevant provision that provides that certified copy given under Section 57 of the Registration Act shall be admissible for the purpose of proving the contents of its original document. In this context it is to be noted that certified copy issued thereunder is not a copy of the original document, but is a copy of the registration entry Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1588 of 2019 dt.22-05-2025 which is itself a copy of the original and is a public document under Section 74(2) of the Evidence Act and Sub-section (5) thereof, makes it admissible in evidence for proving the contents of its original ................................................ ..............................................................."