JUDGMENT : PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Present Civil Miscellaneous petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing/setting aside the order dated 24.05.2022 passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division I, Jamtara in Original Suit No. 49 of 2013, whereby and whereunder learned Civil Judge Senior Division has allowed the application of plaintiff to mark Exhibit the certified copy of registered deed of Adoption No. 128/1983 dated 10.09.1983 and registered deed of Adoption No. 5 of 2012 dated 08.02.2012 on the ground that these documents are public documents requiring no formal proof and certified copies of the deed may be admitted in evidence. Factual Matrix 2. The case of plaintiff/Respondents is that plaintiffs and defendants both parties are Hindu and governed by Dayabhag school of Hindu Law. The defendant no. 1, Sashibala @ Sashi Mondalain, is the maternal aunt of the plaintiff. Mother of the plaintiff, namely, Bhanumati Mondalain was full sister of late Binod Mondal and late Kedar Mondal of village Bewa who died issueless soon after the survey settlement leaving behind their respective widows namely, Sashi Bala @ Sashimani Mondalain and Dulubala Mondalain. It is alleged that both the above widows were helpless and none were in their family to cultivate lands and properties and they have surrendered all their properties of Binod Mondal and Kedar Mondal in or about 1948 in favour of 4 sons of Bhanumati Dasi @ Mondalain viz. the plaintiff and his other three brothers and they have executed a deed of surrender in favour of the plaintiff and his brother on 08.04.1965 through notary affidavit, thus the plaintiff and his brothers have been possessing the entire properties of Binod Mandal and Kedar Mondal of village Bewa and other Mouja and they are in peaceful cultivating possession till date and living in their houses at Bewa. It is further stated that long before the surrender of the lands, the defendant no. 1 Sashibala @ Sashi Mondalain started living at her father’s place at Village Dhobna but subsequently defendant no. 1’s brother had evil eye to take back the lands through his sister Sashi Bala @ Sashimani Mondalain and got a deed of adoption executed and registered in favour of one Amit Kumar Mondal son of Sadhu Chandra Mondal vide deed of Adoption No. 128 of 1983. 1’s brother had evil eye to take back the lands through his sister Sashi Bala @ Sashimani Mondalain and got a deed of adoption executed and registered in favour of one Amit Kumar Mondal son of Sadhu Chandra Mondal vide deed of Adoption No. 128 of 1983. Thereafter, Amit Kumar Mondal and his father Sadhu Chandra Mondal with a view to dispossess the plaintiffs and his brothers from the properties of Binod Mondal and Kedar Mondal induced Sashibala @ Sashi Mondalain to transfer the non-transferable lands of the plaintiffs, which are recorded in the name of Binod Mondal and Kedar Mondal and executed some fake and illegal transfer of lands in favour of defendant no. 2 Madan Mondal against which also the plaintiff has filed RE Case No. 7/11-12 in the Court of SDO, Jamtara and to legalize the said illegal transfer the defendant no. 1 illegally executed another Adoption Deed No. 5 of 2012 dated 08.02.2012 in favour of son of Madan Mondal i.e. Minor Chandan Mondal, Defendant No. 4. In the above premises, the plaintiff has sought following reliefs: (1) A declaration of Adoption Deed No. 5 of 2012 dated 08.02.2012 of Jamtara Sub Registry Office as void, illegal and in-operative and is liable to be cancelled. (2) Cancellation of Registered Deed of Adoption No. 5 of 2012, dated 08.02.2012. (3) Cost of the suit (4) Any other relief, these plaintiffs may be found entitled to in law and equity. 3. In their written statement defendants nos. 1 and 2, namely Sashibala @ Sashi Mondalain and Madan Mondal have categorically denied to surrender the land in favour of plaintiff and his brothers and they executed no document in their favour. Defendant no. 1 has never adopted any son, namely, Amit Kumar Mandal nor executed any deed of adoption. The defendant no. 1, Shashi Bala being issueless widow lady has voluntarily adopted son of Madan Mondal, namely, Minor Chandan Mondal in compliance of legal formalities through registered adoption deed no. 05 of 2012 and in the course of pendency of the above suit the plaintiff filed an application to mark exhibit the certified copy of registered Adoption Deed No. 128 of 1983 dated 10.09.1983 and No. 05 of 2012 dated 08.02.2012, Jamtara Sub Registry Office as a public document requiring no formal proof which was allowed by the learned court blow and assailed in this petition. 4. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned court below has wrongly assumed the certified copy of registered deed of adoption as public document requiring no formal proof of its execution. It is further submitted that earlier Title (Partition) Suit No. 03 of 2007 was instituted by one Haren Mandal and another in which Shashi Bala Mondalain along with predecessor of plaintiff of present case namely Manesh @ Sahdev Mondal was party. Partition was claimed in respect of joint properties of all the parties including Sashibala @ Sashi Mondalain/defendant no. 1 and Manesh @ Sahdev Mondal wherein Sisibala Bala and her Gotni Dulubala have denied execution of deed of surrender in favour of present plaintiff. In that case a specific issue was framed as “Issue No. 4 “whether the plaintiff Manesh @ Sahdev Mondal and his family on the basis of surrender of lands by Sisibala in their favour and execution of deed of surrender in their favour had acquired any right over the property of Sisibala?” Above issue was decided against the Manesh @ Sahdev Mondal, predecessor of the present plaintiff vide judgment dated 28.01.2016. Meanwhile, Monish Mondal died and his heirs, present plaintiff filed Title Appeal No. 18 of 2016 before the Court of Principal District Judge, Jamtara, which was also dismissed. Thereafter, present Suit No. 49 of 2013 has been instituted by the plaintiffs without having any locus standi to challenge the adoption deed. The learned court below has committed serious illegality in allowing the application of plaintiffs without laying any foundational facts of admitting the secondary evidence, hence, impugned order is liable to be set aside. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment in Rekha Rana vs. Ratnashree Jain, AIR 2006 M.P. 107 and Mangal Das Oraon and Others vs. Ladhu Oraon and Others in Second Appeal No. 8 of 1995, dated 22.04.2016, passed by this High Court. 6. Per Contra: learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed the aforesaid contentions and submitted that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgments of Appaiya vs. Andimuthu @ Thangapandi and Others, 2023 SCC Online SC 1183 and Land Acquisition Officer and Mandal Revenue Officer vs. Narasaiah, (2001) 3 SCC 530 . 7. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgments of Appaiya vs. Andimuthu @ Thangapandi and Others, 2023 SCC Online SC 1183 and Land Acquisition Officer and Mandal Revenue Officer vs. Narasaiah, (2001) 3 SCC 530 . 7. On the basis of contentions of both the parties, the primary questions arises in this case as to whether registered adoption deed is a public document and it may be admitted in evidence without laying foundation for secondary evidence as mentioned in Section 65 of the Evidence Act? 8. The general rules for proving the documentary evidence are dealt in chapter 5 of the Evidence Act, Section 61 provides that contents of documents may be proved either by primary or by secondary evidence. Section 62 defines primary evidence as meaning the document itself produced for inspection of the Court. Section 63 defines secondary evidence as meaning and including certified copies given under provisions of the Evidence Act. Section 64 mandates that document must be proved by primary evidence except in the cases mentioned in the subsequent sections. Section 65 deals with cases in which secondary evidence relating to documents may be given. The relevant portion of Section 65 is extracted below: (a) When the original is shown or appears to be in the possession or power: Of the person against whom the documents is sought to be proved, or of any person out of reach of, or not subject to, the process of the court. Of any person legally bound to produce it, and when, after the notice mentioned in Section 66, such persons does not produce it. (b) When the existence, condition or contents of the original have been proved to be admitted in writing by the person against whom it is proved or by his representative in interest. (c) When the original has been destroyed or lost or when the party offering evidence of its contents cannot, for any other reasons not arising from his own default or neglect, produce it in reasonable time. (d) When the original is of such a nature as not be easily movable. (e) When the original is a public document within the meaning of Section 74. (f) When the original is a document of which a certified copy is permitted by this Act, or by any other law in force in India, to be given in evidence. (g)........... (d) When the original is of such a nature as not be easily movable. (e) When the original is a public document within the meaning of Section 74. (f) When the original is a document of which a certified copy is permitted by this Act, or by any other law in force in India, to be given in evidence. (g)........... Section 65 further provides that in cases (a), (c) and (d), any secondary evidence of the contents of documents is admissible, in case (b), the written document is admissible, in case (e) and (f) a certified copy of documents, but no other kind of secondary evidence is admissible. Section 67 relates to proof of signature/handwriting it is extracted below 67: proof of Signature and hand writing of person alleged to have been signed or written documents produced: if a document is alleged to have been signed or to have been written wholly or impart by any person, the signature or the hand writing or so much of the document as is alleged to be in that person handwriting must be proved to be in his handwriting. Further Section 74 to 78 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with Evidence regarding the pubic documents and private documents as well as the proof of public document. For proper appreciation of the issue involved in this case certain relevant provisions of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is quoted below: Section 74. Public documents - The following documents are public documents : (1) Documents forming the acts, or records of the acts: (i) of the sovereign authority. (ii) of official bodies and tribunals. (iii) of public officers, legislative, judicial and executive, (of any part of India or of the Commonwealth), or of a foreign country; (2) Public records Kept (In any State) of private documents. Section 75 of Evidence Act “Private documents” All other documents are private documents. Section 76. (ii) of official bodies and tribunals. (iii) of public officers, legislative, judicial and executive, (of any part of India or of the Commonwealth), or of a foreign country; (2) Public records Kept (In any State) of private documents. Section 75 of Evidence Act “Private documents” All other documents are private documents. Section 76. Certified copy of public documents: Every public officer having the custody of a public document, which any person has a right to inspect, shall give that person on demand a copy of it on payment of the legal fees therefore, together with a certificate written at the foot of such copy that it is a true copy of such document of part thereof, as the case may be, and such certificate shall be dated and subscribed by such document of part thereof, as the case may be, and such certificate shall be dated and subscribed by such officer with his name and his name and his official title, and shall be sealed, whenever such officer is authorized by law to make use of a seal; and such copies so certified shall be called certified copies. Explanation: Any officer who, by the ordinary course of official duty, is authorized to deliver such copies, shall be deemed to have the custody of such documents within the meaning of this section. 9. Now it would be appropriate to discuss some Judgments relating to issue involved in this case. In the case of Rekha Rana vs. Ratnashree Jain, (2005) SCC Online M.P. 364 Madhya Pradesh High Court held as under: “8. A deed of sale is a conveyance. A deed of conveyance or other document executed by any person is not an act nor record of an act of any sovereign authority or of any official body or tribunal, or of any public officer, legislative, judicial and executive. Nor is it a public record kept in a state of any private documents. A sale deed (or any other deed of conveyance) when presented for registration under the registration act, is not retained or kept in any public office of a State after registration, but is returned to the person who presented such document for registration, on completion of the process of registration. An original registered document is not therefore a public record kept by a State of private document. An original registered document is not therefore a public record kept by a State of private document. Consequently, a deed of sale or other registered document will not fall under either of the two classes of the documents described in Section 74 as ‘public documents’. Any document which is not a public document is a private document. Therefore, there is no hesitation in holding that registered sale deed, (or any other registered document) is not a public document but a private document. 9........This position is made abundantly clear in Gopal Das vs. Shri Thakurji, AIR 1943 PC 83 wherein the Privy Council considering the question whether a registered receipt is a public document observed thus: “It was contended by Sir Thomas Strangman for the respondents that the receipt comes within Para-2 of Section 74, Evidence Act and was a “public document” hence under Section 65 (e) no such foundation is required as in cases coming within clauses (a), (b) and (c) of that section. Their Lordships cannot accept this argument since the original receipt of 1881 is not “a public record of a private document.” The original has to be returned to the party.” The MP High court also referred the following passage from Ratan Lal’s Law of evidence “19th Edition Page 237.” “Public document: [Clause (e)] to Section 65 Evidence Act is intended to protect the originals of public records from the danger from which they would be exposed by constant production in evidence. Secondary evidence is admissible in the case of public documents mentioned in Section 74. What Section 74 provides is that public records kept in any State of Private documents are public documents but private documents of which public record are kept are not in themselves public documents. A registered document, therefore, does not fall under either clause (e) or (f). The entry in the register book is a public document, but the original is a private document.” 10. The above passage of Rekha Rana vs. Ratan Singh Jain (supra) is also quoted with approval by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deccan Paper Mills Co. Ltd. vs. Regency Mahavir Properties, (2021) 4 SCC 786 . This Court also in Mangal Das Oraon (supra) as relied by learned counsel for the petitioner has held as under: “15.......the registered adoption deed dated 25.07.1996 has however, been produced to prove that Maru Oraon executed the adoption deed. Ltd. vs. Regency Mahavir Properties, (2021) 4 SCC 786 . This Court also in Mangal Das Oraon (supra) as relied by learned counsel for the petitioner has held as under: “15.......the registered adoption deed dated 25.07.1996 has however, been produced to prove that Maru Oraon executed the adoption deed. In fact the defendants examined Sahadeo Oraon (DW-3), the brother of Mardwa Oraon (defendant no. 2) who proved his signature on the registered deed of adoption. He deposed that Maru Oraon took Mangal Das Oraon in adoption and executed a registered deed. He also deposed that the deed was written by scribe Abul Khair. Another witness Sohel Akhtar (DW-5), who is the son of the scribe Abul Khair, identified that the deed was written in the hand of his father. Besides them, Mardwa Oraon (DW-1), natural father of Mangal Das Oraon has deposed that he gave his son Mangal Das Oraon in adoption in presence of Maru Oroan Pahan and Pujari, according to Oraon custom. The trial court took notice of the fact that the defendants have claimed mutation in respect of suit land and they produced rent receipt. The 1st Appellate Court has erroneously discarded the aforesaid evidence of possession of the defendants. In my opinion the plaintiffs failed to disprove the registered deed of adoption and the First Appellate Court has erroneously relied on the memorandum of adoption allegedly prepared on 10.02.1942. The said memorandum of adoption is not a public document rather, it is a private document, which does not carry any presumption of its validity.” 11. In view of aforementioned legal proposition, it is established that the factum of registration of document which is otherwise private document entered into parties does not cloth the document with any higher legal status merely by virtue of its registration. 12. The learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon on reported judgment in land acquisition officer and Mandal Revenue Officer (Supra) is not applicable in this case. In this case the question relates to determination of fair value for the purpose of just compensation in the land acquisition cases for that purpose certified copy of registered sale deed in the contemporary time are held to be considered in view of provisions of Section 51(a) of land acquisition Act and also in view of Section 51(5) of Indian Registration Act. 13. 13. In view of aforesaid discussion, the legal propositions may be summarized as under: (i) Production and Marking of a certified copy as secondary evidence of a public document under Section 65(e) need not be preceded by laying of any foundation for acceptance of secondary evidence. This is the position even in regard to certified copies of entries in Book I under Registration Act relation to a private document copied therein. (ii) Production and marking of a certified copy as secondary evidence of a private documents (either a registered document like a sale deed or any unregistered document) is permissible only after laying the foundation for acceptance of secondary evidence under clause (a), (b) or (c) of Section 65. (iii) Production and marking of an original or certified copy of a document does not dispense with the need for proof of execution of the document. Execution has to be proved in a manner known to law (Section 67 and 68 and ensuing Sections in chapter (5) of Evidence Act. 14. In view of aforesaid discussion and reasons it is obvious that the learned court below has committed serious error of law while assuming the registered adoption deed to be a public document and ordered it to mark exhibit without formal proof or laying foundational facts to be proved for marking the documents as secondary evidence as per provisions of Section 65 of the Evidence Act. In this view of matter, I am of the firm view that impugned order is not legally sustainable and here by set aside. This petition is allowed. 15. I.A. if any, stands disposed off.