Secondary evidence requires strict foundational proof; a copy of a copy could not support reconveyance relief.

A photocopy of a copy of an alleged reconveyance agreement could not be admitted as secondary evidence without strict proof of the statutory conditions for admissibility. The court held that the Evidence Act permits secondary evidence only within recognised exceptions and that Section 65 does not dispense with the requirements of Section 63 or the necessary foundational facts. Because the claim for specific performance depended on that document, the evidentiary basis for reconveyance failed. The alleged agreement was therefore inadmissible, the plaintiff was not entitled to reconveyance on that basis, and the dismissal of the suit remained intact.

---

---

Issues: Whether a photocopy of a copy of the alleged reconveyance agreement could be admitted and relied upon as secondary evidence, and whether the suit for reconveyance could succeed on that basis.

Analysis: Secondary evidence is governed by the Evidence Act, but a copy transcribed from a copy is not admissible unless the conditions for secondary evidence are satisfactorily established and the document falls within the recognised statutory exceptions. The alleged reconveyance agreement was sought to be proved through a photocopy of a copy, while the original was not produced. The Court held that Section 65 did not override the requirements of Section 63, and that the foundational requirements for admitting such a copy were not met. Since the decree of specific performance rested on that document, the evidentiary basis for the claim failed.

Conclusion: The alleged reconveyance agreement was not admissible in evidence, and the plaintiff was not entitled to reconveyance on that basis.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the judgment of the appellate single Judge was set aside, leaving the dismissal of the suit intact.

Ratio Decidendi: A copy of a copy cannot be relied upon as secondary evidence unless its admissibility is brought within the statutory framework for secondary evidence and the required foundational facts are proved; a decree founded on an inadmissible document cannot stand.

---