JUDGMENT : Annie John, J. This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 12.03.2013 passed in O.S. No. 365 of 2009 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Palakkad. The appellant herein is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants in the aforesaid suit. 2. The appellant and the respondents are the mother and children. On 22.07.1995, six documents were executed in the family of the parties and all those documents were produced and marked in the aforesaid suit. As per Ext.B1, the appellant and respondents 2 and 3, the sons, had executed a release deed in favour of their father. By Ext.A6, certain properties were assigned to the appellant by the first respondent (the mother). By Ext.A5 (Ext.B2), certain other items were sold out to the second respondent by the first respondent. By Ext.A4 (Ext.B3), some items of properties were assigned in favour of the third respondent by the first respondent. On the same day, through Ext.B4, a Will was executed by the first respondent in favour of her sons, who are the appellant and respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 3. It is further alleged that on 22.07.1995, an agreement was executed between the appellant and respondent Nos. 1 to 3 regarding certain items of properties mentioned in the said agreement, which belongs to the first respondent. About 1.58 acres were dealt with therein and that document was marked as Ext.A1 in the suit. As per Ext.A1, the first respondent had to sell out the said properties and the proceeds therein had to be divided among them equally. If she fails to sell off the properties, the Mediators can initiate steps to see that the properties are sold out and the proceeds are divided among the said parties as agreed. The original of Ext.A1 was kept in the custody of the first respondent and the other executants were given the xerox copies of the same. Eventhough the properties were sold out as stated in Ext.A1, the sale proceeds were not divided among them. It is alleged that the entire amounts were either in the custody of the first respondent or misappropriated by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and that, no share had been given to the fourth respondent. Eventhough the properties were sold out as stated in Ext.A1, the sale proceeds were not divided among them. It is alleged that the entire amounts were either in the custody of the first respondent or misappropriated by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and that, no share had been given to the fourth respondent. It is also submitted that the appellant was not aware of the actual sale proceeds of the property and therefore, he assessed it as Rs.50,00,000/- for the purpose of suit. The suit has been filed claiming Rs.12.5 lakhs as the share of the appellant. 4. Per contra, the respondents have denied the execution of Ext.A1; but they admitted that the entire properties of the mother were sold out. No documents has been produced by the respondents to prove how much amount has been received as the sale consideration of the properties mentioned in Ext.A1. The witnesses to Ext.A1 were the Mediators. Among them, Sundaresan is dead. The other witness namely Radhakrishnan is antagonistic to the appellant and hence, he was not examined. Sri. K. Anandan, the scribe of the above documents including Ext.A1 was examined as PW2 in the suit. On the side of the appellant, Exts.A1 to A6 were marked and PWs 1 and 2 were also examined. On the side of the respondents, Exts.B1 to B4 were marked. After evaluating the entire evidence, oral as well as documentary, the lower court has ultimately dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal is filed. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the court below ought to have found that I.A. No. 3386 of 2010 was filed invoking Order 11 Rule 4 (interrogatories) of the Code of Civil Procedure. In answer to this petition, it was specifically stated that no document like Ext.A1 was signed and executed by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 along with the appellant. According to the appellant, since the respondents have denied execution of Ext.A1, there was no need to file an application for production of the original document of Ext.A1. Ext.A1 was produced and marked subject to proof on the side of the appellant. It was also argued that the court below ought to have found that the execution of Ext.A1 was duly proved on examination of PW2, the scribe of the said document. Ext.A1 was produced and marked subject to proof on the side of the appellant. It was also argued that the court below ought to have found that the execution of Ext.A1 was duly proved on examination of PW2, the scribe of the said document. The finding of the court below that non-examination of Radhakrishnan is not fatal to the facts stated by the appellant. It is further argued that the first respondent is the best person to reveal the actual amount received after the sale of the property involved in Ext.A1 document and in the absence of such disclosure, the amount affirmed by the appellant had to be accepted. Accordingly, he prayed for setting aside the judgment and decree of the court below. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents. We have gone through the records. From the records, it could be seen that the appellant has filed the suit for recovery of money as per a settlement agreement. According to the appellant, himself and respondents 1 to 4 had entered into an agreement with regard to the property belonged to the first respondent, that the property involved in Ext.A1 had to be sold and the proceeds had to be distributed equally among himself and respondents 2 to 4. 7. The respondents have filed a written statement denying all the averments in the plaint. In the written statement it is stated that neither the first respondent has paid any amount to the other defendants nor respondents 2 and 3 have appropriated any amount from the first respondent being the sale proceeds of the first respondent's property. They have also denied the execution of the family settlement agreement between the appellant and the first respondent. It is also stated that there is no such understanding to divide the sale proceeds among the appellant and the respondents in the event of the sale of the first respondent's property. It was alleged by the appellant that the first respondent has sold the property for Rs.50 lakhs and he is entitled to get 1/4 share of the same. It is also stated that there is no such understanding to divide the sale proceeds among the appellant and the respondents in the event of the sale of the first respondent's property. It was alleged by the appellant that the first respondent has sold the property for Rs.50 lakhs and he is entitled to get 1/4 share of the same. It is an admitted fact that the property in dispute exclusively belongs to the first respondent and none of them has any manner of right over the property of the first respondent and no such claim can be made by anyone as a matter of right against the first respondent in respect of the sale proceeds. It was also pointed out by the respondents' counsel that the appellant has issued a lawyer notice by claiming 1/4th share of the total sale consideration which would come to Rs.1,00,00,000/-. If that be so, the property would have sold for Rs.4,00,00,000/-. But when the appellant filed the suit, he has stated that the property has been sold for Rs.50 lakhs only and he is entitled to get Rs.12.5 lakhs from the first respondent. Therefore, from the lawyer notice as well as the plaint averments, it is borne out that the appellant has got only vague allegations and he has no consistent case against the respondents. 8. During evidence, PW1 admitted that he started living separately since 1995. According to the respondents, due to the incessant quarrel on the side of the appellant for money and land, the first respondent was constrained to assign certain properties to the appellant on 22.07.1995 and thereafter also he was quarreling with the parents. In such circumstances, there was no possibility of executing an agreement as alleged by the appellant. According to the appellant, he has not produced any material to establish that the first respondent has sold the properties for a consolidated sum and no such details were furnished in the plaint also. 9. The appellant filed the suit based on an agreement whereby a family settlement was arrived at between the appellant and the respondents agreeing that in case of future sale of the property of the first respondent, the proceeds would equally be divided among the appellant and the respondents. 9. The appellant filed the suit based on an agreement whereby a family settlement was arrived at between the appellant and the respondents agreeing that in case of future sale of the property of the first respondent, the proceeds would equally be divided among the appellant and the respondents. During Chief examination of PW1, he has produced the photocopy of the alleged agreement executed by the first respondent which was objected to by the respondents. Therefore, the photocopy of the agreement was marked only subject to proof and admissibility. The original of Ext.A1 was not produced before this Court. At the time of argument, the learned counsel for the appellant brought out that he has put an interrogatory for which the respondents have given a reply that no such agreement was executed. So, the burden of proof on the side of the appellant was discharged because the respondents were not in possession of the original of Ext.A1 agreement. In view of the answer given by the respondents, it is to be presumed that Ext.A1 photo copy is the true copy of the original agreement. 10. In this connection Sections 64, 65 and 65(a) and 66 of the Indian Evidence Act have got much relevance in this case. Section 64 of the Act reads thus: 64. Proof of documents by primary evidence.- Documents must be proved by primary evidence except in the cases hereinafter mentioned. The Court cannot act on copies, still less on uncertified copies. Secondary evidence is not more permissible here than in any other Court. It should be considered to be a rule of practice in all cases where the genuineness of document is in issue, that the parties concerned should bring before courts, either the original document or, at any rate, a photocopy of it, so that Courts, should be in position of having the document before them and being able to form their own expression upon an inspection. As per Section 64, it is clear that the documents must be proved by primary evidence except in the cases mentioned in Section 65 of the Act. 11. Section 62 of the Evidence Act deals with the primary evidence and it reads thus: "62. As per Section 64, it is clear that the documents must be proved by primary evidence except in the cases mentioned in Section 65 of the Act. 11. Section 62 of the Evidence Act deals with the primary evidence and it reads thus: "62. Primary Evidence- primary evidence means the document itself produced for the inspection of the court." Therefore, in order to establish the genuineness of the Ext.A1 agreement, the appellant has to produce the original document itself before this Court and only then it can be considered as the secondary evidence. It is the definite case of the appellant that the original of Ext.A1 agreement was kept in the custody of the first respondent and therefore, he could not procure the production of the original from the first respondent. 12. In fact, the appellant has produced the photocopy of the agreement. It is an unauthenticated copy. In order to accept Ext.A1 in evidence, the appellant ought to have taken steps to produce the same from the custody of the first respondent. The appellant would have taken steps as provided under Section 65 of the Evidence Act. Section 65 of the Act deals with the cases in which secondary evidence relating to documents may be given. As per Section 65 (a) of the Act, a secondary evidence can be adduced, provided a notice mentioned under Section 66 of the Act is issued to the person who possess the document and the said person fails to produce it. Section 65(a) of the Evidence Act reads thus: "65. Cases in which secondary evidence relating to documents may be given.- Secondary evidence may be given of the existence, condition, or contents of a document in the following cases:- (a) When the original is shown or appears to be in the possession or power-of the person against whom the document is sought to be proved, or of any person out of reach of, or not subject to, the process of the Court, or of any person legally bound to produce it, and when, after the notice mentioned in section 66, such person does not produce it;" 13. Section 66 of the Indian Evidence Act provides that secondary evidence of the contents of the documents referred to in Section 65(a) shall not be given, unless the party proposing to give such secondary evidence has previously given notice to the party in whose possession or power the document is kept, to produce the said document. In this context, it is profitable to extract Section 66 of the Act, which reads thus: "66. In this context, it is profitable to extract Section 66 of the Act, which reads thus: "66. Rules as to notice to produce.- Secondary evidence of the contents of the documents referred to in section 65, clause (a), shall not be given unless the party proposing to give such secondary evidence has previously given to the party in whose possession or power the document is, 1[or to his attorney or pleader,] such notice to produce it as is prescribed by law; and if no notice is prescribed by law, then such notice as the Court considers reasonable under the circumstances of the case:- Secondary evidence of the contents of the documents referred to in section 65, clause (a), shall not be given unless the party proposing to give such secondary evidence has previously given to the party in whose possession or power the document is, 1[or to his attorney or pleader,] such notice to produce it as is prescribed by law; and if no notice is prescribed by law, then such notice as the Court considers reasonable under the circumstances of the case:" Provided that such notice shall not be required in order to render secondary evidence admissible in any of the following cases, or in any other case in which the Court thinks fit to dispense with it:- (1) when the document to be proved is itself a notice; (2) when, from the nature of the case, the adverse party must know that he will be required to produce it; (3) when it appears or is proved that the adverse party has obtained possession of the original by fraud or force; (4) when the adverse party or his agent has the original in Court; (5) when the adverse party or his agent has admitted the loss of the document; (6) when the person in possession of the document is out of reach of, or not subject to, the process of the Court." The learned counsel for the appellant has admitted that the appellant has not issued any notice under Section 66 of the Indian Evidence Act to the first respondent and he has not applied before this Court to take necessary steps calling upon the first respondent to produce the original of Ext.A1 document. So, it is proved that the appellant has failed in complying with the mandatory requirements as contemplated under Sections 65(a) and 66 of the Indian Evidence Act to enable himself to adduce secondary evidence. It is a well settled law that the secondary evidence cannot be accepted unless and until the original of such document is produced before this Court. The photocopy of the alleged agreement executed by the first respondent has been marked subject to admissibility; but the appellant has failed to succeed in establishing the contents of the documents by invoking the provisions under Sections 65(a) and 66 of the Act. 14. The admissibility of secondary evidence is discussed in Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation and others v. Jadeja Govubha Chhanubha and another, 2014 (16) SCC 130 . In that case, the Labour Court has placed reliance upon a xerox copy of certificate allegedly issued by officer of the appellant Corporation as a Conductor between 30.10.1987 and 31.03.1989. The xerox copy may not be evidence by itself specially when respondent had stated that original was with him but had not produced the same, yet said document was allowed to be marked at the trial and signature of officer issuing certificate by another officer was examined by appellant. Hence admission of xerox copy of certificate, without any objection from appellant Corporation cannot be faulted. Strict rules of evidence are not applicable to the proceedings before the Labour Court. 15. It is held in H. Siddiqui v. A Ramalingam, (2011) 4 SCC 240 , that admitting signature in photocopy of document does not amount to admitting contents of documents. In paragraph 11, it is held thus: "The provisions of Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provide for permitting the parties to adduce secondary evidence. However, such a course is subject to a large number of limitations. In a case where original documents are not produced at any time, nor any factual foundation laid for giving secondary evidence, it is impermissible to allow a party to adduce secondary evidence. Thus, the secondary evidence relating to the contents of a document is inadmissible, until the non-production of original is accounted for, so as to bring it within one or other of the cases provided for in the Section. The secondary evidence must be authenticated by foundational evidence that alleged copy is, in fact, true copy of the original. Thus, the secondary evidence relating to the contents of a document is inadmissible, until the non-production of original is accounted for, so as to bring it within one or other of the cases provided for in the Section. The secondary evidence must be authenticated by foundational evidence that alleged copy is, in fact, true copy of the original. Mere admission of a document in evidence does not amount to its proof. Therefore, the documentary evidence is required to be proved in accordance with law. The court has an obligation to decide the question of admissibility of a document in secondary evidence before making endorsement thereon." 16. In the instant case, the original document was not produced by the appellant and therefore, that cannot be said that the appellant failed to prove the contents of the document so produced. But Ext.A1 document is not admissible in evidence and therefore, it was rejected by the lower court. The trial court dismissed the suit finding that the genuineness of Ext.A1 settlement agreement was not proved by the appellant. It is the case of the appellant that the original of Ext.A1 document was with the first respondent. Unless and until the original of Ext.A1 is produced before this Court, the photocopy of the same cannot be accepted as secondary evidence. So, it is the duty of the Court to examine whether the documents produced in the Court or the contents thereof have any probative value. The appellant has filed the suit on the strength of Ext.A1 document alleging that there was an agreement executed between the appellant and respondents 1 to 3 to the effect that the property belongs to the first respondent would be sold and the sale proceeds would be distributed between the appellant and other respondents. The genuineness of Ext.A1 agreement has to be proved by the appellant by adducing primary evidence and in the absence of primary evidence, the appellant has to establish an existence of Ext.A1 by adducing secondary evidence. 17. The genuineness of Ext.A1 agreement has to be proved by the appellant by adducing primary evidence and in the absence of primary evidence, the appellant has to establish an existence of Ext.A1 by adducing secondary evidence. 17. It is held in Sasan Power Limited v. North American Coal Corporation (India) Private Limited, (2016) 10 SCC 813 , that disposition of property, whether it be by way of a contract or grant or any other, if reduced to writing, the parties are prohibited from giving any evidence regarding the terms of such disposition, except the document itself or the "secondary evidence" of that document, provided that such secondary evidence is otherwise admissible under the Evidence Act, 1872. Though oral evidence can be secondary evidence under Section 63(5), Section 64 of the Evidence Act, 1872 mandates that the documents must be proved by primary evidence except in exceptional circumstances specified under the other provisions of the Evidence Act, 1872. Logically, a concession at the Bar regarding the content of a written agreement including the fact as to who are the parties to the document does not stand on any different footing than the oral evidence of the parties. The concession made by the counsel for the respondent is not secondary evidence admissible under any of the clauses of Section 65 of the Evidence Act, 1872. 18. From the discussion as stated above, we are of the considered opinion that the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that Ext.A1 agreement is to be accepted as secondary evidence cannot be accepted. It is also borne out that two witnesses were cited in Ext.A1 document. One of them is Mr. Sundaresan and another Mr. Radhakrishnan. None of them was examined before court also. It is also borne out that Sundaresan is no more and Radhakrishnan was not produced before this Court. The explanation for non-examination of Radhakrishnan was that he was having loggerheads with him as he was a troublemaker in his family. If Radhakrishnan was a troublemaker of his family, it is unbelievable that he himself has become a witness to Ext.A1 document. It is also borne out that the animosity between himself and Radhakrishnan started as early as during the period 1993-1995. No person can be expected to sign or execute a document, if the other person is in inimical terms with him. The scribe of Ext.A1 was also examined. It is also borne out that the animosity between himself and Radhakrishnan started as early as during the period 1993-1995. No person can be expected to sign or execute a document, if the other person is in inimical terms with him. The scribe of Ext.A1 was also examined. During cross examination, he admitted that he is unable to remember as to whether the said document was signed and executed by the parties in front of him and therefore, PW2 cannot be treated as an attesting witness. The appellant has pointed out that on 22.07.1990 itself, six documents were executed. Four documents were seen to have executed after registering Ext.A1. A Will was also executed on the same day by the first respondent i.e., Ext.B4. Ext.B1 dated 22.07.1995 is a release deed executed by Raveendran and others in favour of Raman i.e., the appellant and respondents 2 and 3 in favour of their father. Ext.B2 dated 22.07.1995 is an assignment deed executed by Lakshmi in favour of Karunakaran i.e., the first respondent in favour of the second respondent. Ext.B3 dated 22.07.1995 is the assignment deed executed by Lakshi in favour of Gangadharan. The query that if Ext.A1 settlement deed was alleged to have executed on the same day, what prevented them from registering the said document, was not answered properly by the appellant and therefore, the genuineness of Ext.A1 is doubted. 19. Over and above, there was no evidence before the court to accept the vague plea that some of the property belongs to the first respondent was assigned after Ext.A1 agreement and sold it for approximately Rs.50 lakhs. When the appellant was in the box, he could not say anything more about the details of the properties sold. The appellant could not establish the source from where the information regarding the sale of property is obtained. 20. From the materials placed before us, we are of the view that the appellant has no consistent case. While in the lawyer notice he has stated that he is entitled to the share of Rs.1,00,00,000/-, he reduced the same to Rs.12.5 lakhs at the time of filing of the suit. It clearly indicates that he has no clear idea about the sale of the property and receipt of sale proceeds. Apart from that, he failed to produce the original of Ext.A1 settlement agreement. It clearly indicates that he has no clear idea about the sale of the property and receipt of sale proceeds. Apart from that, he failed to produce the original of Ext.A1 settlement agreement. As we have already held, the appellant has not complied with the mandatory provisions as contemplated under Sections 65(a) and 66 of the Indian Evidence Act to admit Ext.A1 as secondary evidence. Under these circumstances, we have no way other than to hold that the appellant has failed to succeed in proving his case. Moreover, the first respondent is alive and she has got title over the property which was alleged to have sold. It is pertinent to note that the first respondent who had title over the property has got every right to alienate the property for which the appellant or other respondents have no right to question her in doing so and it is up to the first respondent to take a decision with regard to her property. Unless and until the appellant establishes any claim over the property belongs to the first respondent, he cannot seek any relief as prayed for in the suit. 21. The lower court has rightly held that the appellant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for. We do not find any ground to interfere with the findings arrived at by the court below. Therefore, the appeal is to be dismissed. In the result, with the above observations, we dismiss the appeal.