9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Dispute over title to land based on alleged gift versus sale deed. - Admissibility of certified copy of sale deed as evidence. - Interpretation of Section 65 and Section 74(2) of the Evidence Act. - Legal significance of public documents and certified copies. - Precedents on admissibility of documents marked as exhibits. Analysis: The case involved a dispute over the title to a piece of land between the plaintiff claiming ownership through a gift from his brother and the defendant claiming ownership through a sale deed from the plaintiff's brother's heir. The trial court ruled in favor of the defendant, but the District Judge reversed the decision based on the admissibility of evidence. The key issue revolved around the admissibility of a certified copy of the sale deed, marked as Ext. 'Cha', which was crucial for establishing the defendant's title to the land. The lower appellate court held that Ext. 'Cha' was not admissible as evidence, citing Section 65 of the Evidence Act and the failure to fulfill conditions for secondary evidence. However, the High Court judge disagreed with this interpretation. The judge reasoned that the certified copy of the sale deed maintained in the Sub-Registrar's office qualified as a public document under Section 74(2) of the Evidence Act. This classification made the copy admissible as evidence, as per the provisions of Section 77 regarding the mode of proving public documents. Moreover, the judge highlighted the legal principle that once a document is marked as an exhibit and admitted without objection during proceedings, parties cannot later dispute its admissibility. Citing relevant Supreme Court judgments, the judge emphasized that objections to admissibility must be raised promptly and cannot be raised later in the appellate stage. Therefore, the lower appellate court's decision to reject Ext. 'Cha' as evidence was deemed erroneous, leading to the restoration of the trial court's judgment in favor of the defendant. In conclusion, the High Court allowed the defendant's Second Appeal, setting aside the lower appellate court's decision and restoring the trial court's judgment in favor of the defendant. The parties were left to bear their own costs in the circumstances of the case. The judgment clarified the admissibility of certified copies of public documents and underscored the importance of timely objections to the admissibility of evidence during legal proceedings.
|
