Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 962 (PAT)

Umashankar Singh v. Keshwa Singh

2013-08-07

CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH

body2013
Order Petitioners in the present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are aggrieved by order dated 27.9.2012 passed by learned Sub-Judge 5th, Siwan in Title Suit No. 275/1984, whereby the Court below has refused to mark the certified copies of registered deed of gift as an exhibit. From the impugned order it appears that the Court below has rejected the petition for exhibiting the certified deed of gift on the ground that certified copies of the document could not be exhibited. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that the impugned order is contrary to the provisions as contained in Section 77 read with Section 74(2) and 76 of the Evidence Act, 1972. He submits that a certified copies of a registered agreement for sale is admissible in evidence even if parties to the document are not examined to prove it. In support of his submission he has placed reliance upon a Supreme Court judgment reported in (2001) 6 SCC 254 (State of Haryana vs. Ram Singh). 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that the Court below rightly rejected the petition for exhibiting certified copies of the documents in the absence of original documents and the same not being proved by the parties to such documents. He further submits that the suit was filed in the year 1984 and there is no explanation as to what prevented the petitioners from taking steps for getting the said documents exhibited during all these years. 4. In my opinion, in view of the Supreme Court judgment reported in (2001) 6 SCC 254 (State of Haryana vs. Ram Singh), the Court below ought not to have refused to exhibit the certified copies of the deed of gift. Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the said judgment lays down the law and read thus:- “5. Counsel for the State was right when he submitted that the High Court erred in rejecting Exhibits R-2 and R-3 as inadmissible only on the ground that the parties to the documents had not been examined by the State. It is not the law that a certified copy of a registered agreement for sale is inadmissible in evidence unless the parties to the document are examined to prove it. It is not the law that a certified copy of a registered agreement for sale is inadmissible in evidence unless the parties to the document are examined to prove it. That would be contrary to what Section 77 read with Sections 74(2) and 76 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and more specifically Section 51-A of the Act provide. As far as the provisions of Evidence Act are concerned, a certified copy of the registered sale deed is admissible in evidence and does not need to be proved by calling a witness. (See Madamanchi Ramappa V. Muthaluru Bojjappa, AIR at p. 1637). 6. Section 51-A of the Act is to the same effect. In Land Acquisition Officer and Mandal Revenue Officer V.V. Narasaiah, it was held that by virtue of Section 51-A, a certified copy of a document registered under the Registration Act, 1908 including a copy under section 57 of the Act may be accepted as evidence of the transaction recorded in such documents. It is open to the Court to accept the certified copy as reliable evidence and without examining parties to the documents. This does not however preclude the Court from rejecting the transaction itself as being mala fide or shorn provided such a challenge is laid before the Court.” 5. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 27.9.2012 passed by Sub Judge 5th, Siwan in Title Suit No. 275 of 1984 is set aside. The Court below is directed to take into evidence as exhibits certified copies of the deed of gift dated 22.4.1974. This according to me, is in the interest of justice, though the suit is at the advance stage of argument. 6. This application is, accordingly, allowed.