TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (8) TMI 252
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "(i) A decree of redemption with respect to the suit land be passed in favour of the plaintiffs treating the alleged sale-deed document dated 10.10.1984 a mortgage deed in favour of defendants with a finding that the plaintiffs have already paid the mortgaged money to the defendants. (ii) An order or temporary injunction be passed in favour of the plaintiffs and defendants. (iii) A decree of xxxxx cost be passed in favour of the plaintiffs and defendants. (iv) A decree of any other relief or reliefs be passed in favour of plaintiffs as the court think fit and proper." The father of plaintiff no.1 and grandfather of plaintiff nos. 2 and 3 Ramdeo Singh took a loan of Rs. 7,000/- from the father of defendants/petitioners, Deo Narain Singh, in the year 1984 and executed a registered deed of mortgage dated 10.10.1984 for his land in favour of Deo Narain Singh as a security. Ramdeo Singh and Deo Narain Singh agreed before the villagers that on payment of Rs. 7,000/- to Deo Narain Singh, he would re-convey the land measuring 15 kathas of Survey Plot No. 159 to Ramdeo Singh. Deo Narain Singh was paid in installments the money borrowed by Ramdeo Singh ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l under the category of secondary evidence as provided under Section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Evidence Act'). The plaintiffs/respondents failed to satisfy the conditions as laid down under Section 65 of the Evidence Act in order to give the secondary evidence as Section 64 of the Evidence Act provides that the documents must be proved by primary evidence. Only exceptions are the conditions mentioned under Section 65 of the Evidence Act. Learned counsel further submitted that learned trial court committed further error when without considering the relevance of the said document, it illegally admitted the said document as public document without requiring its formal proof. Thus, the learned counsel submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable and the same is fit to be set aside. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs/respondents submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order. The document in question was filed prior to the settlement of issues and considering its relevance, the learned trial court rightly admitted it and marked it as exhibit. The learned counsel further submitted that the docu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....all other documents are private. Now a sale deed is no doubt a private document but whether its certified copy would come under the category of public records kept in any state of private document? The Division Bench of Madhaya Pradesh High Court in the case of Smt. Rekha Rana & Ors. Vs. Smt. Ratneshree Jain, reported in AIR 2006 MP 107 has held the proposition that a certified copy of a sale deed is a public document or a registered sale deed is a public document are erroneous. It has further been held that a registered document (deed of sale etc.) is not a public document. It is a private document. Further, a certified copy of a registered document, copied from Book and issued by the Registering Officer, is neither a public document, nor a certified copy of a private document, but is a certified copy of a public document. In other words, a certified copy of a registered document is a certified copy of public document. The basis for saying so lies in the fact that when a sale deed is registered before the Registering Authority, necessary entries are maintained in the book kept at the Registration Office and, thus, it is a record 'kept in a state of private documents' and, therefor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... production of certified copy of a public document as secondary evidence in proof of contents of its original. Section 79 is the provision for presumption as to the genuineness of certified copies provided the existence of a law declaring certified copy of a document of such nature to be admissible as evidence. When that be the position under the aforesaid provisions, taking note of the fact that the document in question is a registered sale deed, falling within the definition of a public document, the question is whether there exists any law declaring such certified copy of a document as admissible in evidence for the purpose of proving the contents of its original document. Sub-section (5) of Section 57 of the Registration Act is the relevant provision that provides that certified copy given under Section 57 of the Registration Act shall be admissible for the purpose of proving the contents of its original document. In this context it is to be noted that certified copy issued thereunder is not a copy of the original document, but is a copy of the registration entry which is itself a copy of the original and is a public document under Section 74(2) of the Evidence Act and Sub-sect....