Judgement JUDGEMENT :- This Second Appeal by the defendant is directed against the judgement and decree passed by the District Judge, Goalpara, at Dhubri, in Title Appeal No. 10 of 1973. 2. The plaintiff brought the suit for declaration of his title to the suit property on the allegation that the land originally belonged to his brother, Syed Ali Jotedar, who had gifted the land to him about 14 or 15 years ago. Since then, he was in possession of the suit land But later on he discovered that Khatian had been issued to the defendant in respect of the land and the defendant was attempting to dispossess him and hence he filed the suit for declaration of his title and for correction of the Khatian issued in the name of the defendant. 3. The defendant in his written statement has admitted that the land originally belonged to Syed Ali. His case is that Syed Ali sold the land in favour of one Johiruddin by a registered sale deed. On his death the land was inherited by his son, Motiur Rahman, who sold it in favour of the defendant by a registered sale deed proved as Ext. Jha. 4. The learned trial court dismissed the suit holding that the defendant was able to prove his title to the suit land while the plaintiff failed to prove the alleged gift. On appeal by the plaintiff, the District Judge reversed the judgement and decree of the trial court and decreed the plaintiffs suit. 5. The ground on which the plaintiffs suit has been decreed by the lower appellate Court is that the Ext. Cha which is a certified copy of the sale deed executed by Syed Ali to Jahiruddin, is not admissible in evidence, inasmuch as, the original was not produced and conditions necessary for giving secondary evidence under S.65 of the Evidence Act have not been fulfilled. According to the lower appellate Court Ext. Jha by which the defendant purchased the land, would be of no value as, according to him, the defendants vendor would not have title if he failed to prove title of his vendor. 6. The sole question that falls for decision in this appeal, therefore, is, whether Ext. Cha is or is not admissible. D. W. 2 was an officer in the office of the Sub-Registrar, where the deed was registered. His evidence is that Ext. 6. The sole question that falls for decision in this appeal, therefore, is, whether Ext. Cha is or is not admissible. D. W. 2 was an officer in the office of the Sub-Registrar, where the deed was registered. His evidence is that Ext. Cha was a certified copy of a sale deed executed by Syed Ali in favour of Jahiruddin and that the deed was duly registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar as disclosed by Volume 12, Bock No. 1 and Deed No. 2519 of 1945 at pages 113 and 114. 7. Mr. M.A. Laskar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, relying on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1966 SC 1457 , submits that the decision of the lower appellate court was correct, inasmuch as, the defendant failed to satisfy the conditions laid down under S.65 of the Evidence Act in order to give the secondary evidence. In my opinion, S.65 of the Evidence Act is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In my opinion, the copy of the sale deed which was maintained in the Sub-Registrars office is a public document within the meaning of S.74 (2) of the Evidence Act which reads as follows :- "74. The following documents are public documents :- (1) ………… (2) public records kept in any State of private documents." It is indisputable that the sale deed in question is a private document It is also indisputable that the record of the sale deed kept in the office of the Sub Registrar is a public record of that private document and hence it falls within the category of public document. Section 77 prescribes the mode of proving a public document. It provides - "Such certified copies may be produced in proof of the contents of the public documents or parts of the public documents of which they purport to be copies." It is not disputed that Ext. Cha is a certified copy of the sale deed executed by Syed Ali in favour of Johiruddin. It, therefore, cannot be argued that Ext. Cha is not admissible in evidence. 8. That apart, when this deed, Ext. Cha was proved by D.W. 2, it was admitted without objection by the plaintiff. Cha is a certified copy of the sale deed executed by Syed Ali in favour of Johiruddin. It, therefore, cannot be argued that Ext. Cha is not admissible in evidence. 8. That apart, when this deed, Ext. Cha was proved by D.W. 2, it was admitted without objection by the plaintiff. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in AIR 1961 SC 1655 have observed :- "Once a document has been marked as an exhibit in the case and has been used by the parties in examination and cross-examination of their witnesses...... it is not open either to the trial Court itself or to a Court of Appeal or Revision to go behind that order." In AIR 1972 SC 608 , their Lordships observed : "It is not open to a party to object to the admissibility of documents which are marked as exhibits without any further objection from such party." The above two decisions of the Supreme Court clinch the point. It must, therefore, be held that the learned lower appellate court committed an error in holding that Ext. Cha was not admissible in evidence and thus reversing the judgement and decree of the trial court. 9. In the result, the judgement and decree of the learned lower appellate court are set aside and those of the trial court are restored. The appeal is allowed. But in the circumstances of the case, I leave the parties to bear their own costs. Appeal allowed.