TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Certified Copy of Sale Deed Not Proof of Execution: Court Emphasizes Original Document Requirement</h1> <h3>Smt. Rekha Rana and Ors. Versus Smt. Ratnashree Jain</h3> Smt. Rekha Rana and Ors. Versus Smt. Ratnashree Jain - AIR 2006 MP 107 Issues Involved:1. Whether a registered sale deed is a public document.2. Whether a certified copy of a registered sale deed issued by the Registering Officer is a public document.3. Whether a certified copy of a public document can be received in evidence without any further proof.4. What is the effect and efficacy of producing and marking a certified copy of the sale deed.5. Whether the order of the trial Court requires interference.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Whether a registered sale deed is a public document.- The court clarified that a registered sale deed is not a public document but a private document. According to Section 74 of the Evidence Act, public documents are those forming the acts or records of acts of sovereign authorities, official bodies, tribunals, or public officers. A sale deed executed by a private individual does not fall into this category. The court cited the Privy Council case Gopal Das v. Shri Thakurji and Ratanlal's Law of Evidence to support this position, emphasizing that an original registered document is returned to the person who presented it for registration and is not kept as a public record.Issue 2: Whether a certified copy of a registered sale deed issued by the Registering Officer is a public document.- The court held that Book 1 kept in Registration Offices, where registered documents are copied, entered, or filed, is a public document. However, a certified copy of a registered document extracted from Book 1 is not a public document but a certified copy of a public document. The court explained that while the entries in Book 1 are public records, the certified copy of the sale deed is essentially a true copy of a copy.Issue 3: Whether a certified copy of a public document can be received in evidence without any further proof.- The court referred to Sections 76, 77, and 79 of the Evidence Act, which allow certified copies of public documents to be produced in proof of the contents of the public documents. The court stated that a certified copy of a registered instrument issued by the Registering Officer can be produced as secondary evidence of the public document (entries in Book 1) without laying any foundation for acceptance of secondary evidence. However, this does not prove the execution of the original document, only its contents.Issue 4: What is the effect and efficacy of producing and marking a certified copy of the sale deed.- The court noted that producing and marking a certified copy of a sale deed does not prove the execution of the original document. The execution must be proved by examining the executant or other witnesses, or by other means of proof as outlined in Section 67 of the Evidence Act. The court cited several cases, including Karuppanna Gounder v. Kolandaswami Gounder and Subudhi Padhan v. Raghu Bhuvan, to illustrate that the marking of a certified copy does not dispense with the need for proof of execution.Issue 5: Whether the order of the trial Court requires interference.- The court found that the trial court's order allowing the respondent to produce a certified copy of the sale deed as secondary evidence was unsustainable. The trial court had incorrectly assumed that the original sale deed was a public document and that the certified copy could be admitted under Section 65(e) of the Evidence Act. Additionally, the trial court's reasoning that obtaining the original from the record of F.A. No. 337/2003 would be time-consuming was not a valid ground for accepting the document as secondary evidence. The court emphasized that steps should have been taken to secure the production of the original document.Conclusion:- The court set aside the trial court's order and remitted the matter for fresh consideration. It noted that the respondent could still place material to show that the case would fall under Clause (b) of Section 65, enabling her to give secondary evidence, or take steps to secure the original document.
TaxTMI 