CERTIFIED COPY OF REGISTERED SALE DEED IS A PUBLIC DOCUMENT

[Mr. M. GOVINDARAJAN]

In RAM BRIKSHA SINGH, RAMANUJ SINGH AND VIJAY KUMAR SINGH VERSUS RAMASHRAY SINGH, KRISHNA MOHAN SINGH AND BALRAM SINGH - 2024 (8) TMI 252 - PATNA HIGH COURT, the father of the respondents in this case, Ram Deo Singh obtained a loan of Rs.7000/- from the father of the petitioners, Deo Narain Singh in the year 1984.  They executed a mortgage deed in favor of Deo Narain Singh on 10.10.84 as a security for the loan obtained.  It was agreed by both the parties before the villagers that in repayment of the loan Deo Narain Singh would re-convey the land to Ram Deo Singh by Deo Narain Singh.  The loan was repaid in instalments to Deo Narain Singh.

After the death of Ram Deo Singh his grandson went to the respondents and asked them to receive the balance amount of loan and return their land.  The respondents refused their requests. 

The respondents in this case, filed a suit as a plaint filed title suit before the lower Court, seeking the following reliefs-

• A decree of redemption with respect to the suit land be passed in favor of the plaintiffs treating the alleged sale-deed document dated 10.10.1984 a mortgage deed in favor of defendants with a finding that the plaintiffs have already paid the mortgaged money to the defendants.
• An order or temporary injunction be passed in favor of the plaintiffs and defendants.
• A decree of any other relief or reliefs be passed in favor of plaintiffs as the court think fit and proper.

Both the parties appeared before the Court.  The defendant in this suit filed written statement before the court submitting the following-

• the plaintiff no.1 along with his father had executed a sale deed in favor of the father of the defendants on 10.10.1984.
• the deed was registered before the Registrar,
• Therefore, one could not make out a case against the recital of the sale deed executed by them.
• they acquired right and title and interest by virtue of sale deed dated 10.10.1984 and came in exclusive possession of the land transferred through the said sale deed.
• They also got their names mutated in the revenue records and started paying rent and were issued rent receipts.

During pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs/respondents filed an application on 16.05.2018 in the trial court with prayer to admit certified copy of sale deed dated 21.05.1990 executed by Ram Briksha Singh, in favor of Ajay Kumar Singh treating the said document as a public document.  A rejoinder was filed challenging the maintainability of the application and also on the ground that it has no relevance in the present suit.  The trial court admitted the said document and marked as an exhibit, vide their order dated 02.08.2018.

Against the said order the defendants in the original suit filed the present petition before the High Court.  The petitioner submitted the following before the High Court-

• The learned trial court was not justified in accepting the sale deed executed by petitioner no.1 in favor of Ajay Kumar Singh treating it to be a public document.
• The certified copy of the sale deed could not be said to be a public document
• The trial court did not consider the fact that the said document has no relevance in deciding the present case and the land mentioned in the certified copy of sale deed is different from the plots mentioned in the plaint as suit property.
• The certified copy of the sale deed is not primary evidence and would fall under the category of secondary evidence as provided under Section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act.
• The 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.

Therefore, it was submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable and liable to be set aside.

The respondents submitted the following before the High Court-

• The document which has been exhibited is certified copy of a sale deed and it would be covered under the definition of the public document under Section 74 (2) of the Evidence Act.
•  It is a public record of private document.
• 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.
• In ‘MD. SAIMUDDIN SHEIKH VERSUS ABEJUDDIN SHEIKH - 1978 (7) TMI 242 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT, in which the Single Judge has held that a sale deed is a private document but the record of the sale deed kept in the Office of the Sub Registrar is a public record of that private document and hence it falls within the category of  public document.
• There is no infirmity in the impugned order and the same needs to be sustained and affirmed.

The High Court considered the submissions of both the parties.  The High Court observed that the Court could always look into such document considering its relevance and other aspects to test its admissibility.  The High Court analyzed the provisions of Section 74 and 75 of the Evidence Act.

Section 74 provides that the following documents are public documents-

1. Documents forming the acts, or records of the acts-

1. of the sovereign authority,
2. of official bodies and tribunals, and
3. 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 provides that all other documents are private. 

The High Court observed that a registered document (deed of sale etc.) is not a public document. It is a private document.  a certified copy of a registered document is a certified copy of public document.  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, therefore, a public document.  A certified copy of a registered document issued by Registering Officer, by copying from Book 1, is a certified copy of a public document.

The High Court held that the certified copy of a registered sale deed would fall under the category of public document under Section 74 (2) of the Evidence Act.   A certified copy is, therefore, admissible in evidence both under Section 65 (e) and 65 (f) of the Evidence Act.  The said copy becomes admissible for the purpose of proving the contents of the original document itself.  Therefore, the certified copy becomes admissible in evidence but proof of execution could not be dispensed with. The High Court further held that it will only prove the contents of the original document and not be a proof of execution of the original document.