9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (2) TMI 1056X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... High Court took into consideration two sale-deeds the copy of which were marked without examining anybody connected with the transaction recorded in the instruments. Appellant is actually the State of Andhra pradesh though in the cause-title it is shown as the Land Acquisition Officer concerned of the State. Appellant contended that the High Court should not have taken into account the sale price shown in the above mentioned two sale-deeds as the claimant did not examine the vendee or the vendor or anybody else connected with the sale. There are two decisions of this Court which propounded a legal position consistent with the above stand of the appellant State. They are Inder Singh vs. UOI [1993]3SCR371 and P.Ram Reddy vs. Land Acquisition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2.1.1984 in respect of three Guntas of land, for which PW3, the vendee, was examined by the claimant. 6. Ex.A2 and Ex.A4 are the copies of sale-deed dated 15.11.1983 and 24.3.1984 respectively, which are said to be the instruments relating to small plots of land situated in the vicinity of the acquired land. The reference court did not take into account those two sale-deeds on the ground that nobody connected with the transaction involved in those deeds had been examined as a witness. But the division bench of the High Court expressed that the reference court should have taken into consideration those two sale deeds also for fixing the land value of the acquired land. The High Court took them into consideration and finally reached the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is necessary to find out whether the sale transactions are bona fide or genuine as between the vendee and the vendor. Learned judges then observed thus: In view of the above-settled legal position and the circumstances, the documentary evidence of sale transactions or in the mutation entries on either side are clearly not admissible and therefore, they cannot be looked into, and are accordingly excluded from consideration. 9. In P.Ram Reddy vs. land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad [1995]1SCR584 a bench of two judges (K. Ramaswamy and N. Venkatachala, JJ) again considered the position under Section 51A of the L.A. Act. Speaking for the bench Venkatachala J. had stated thus: However, the mere fact that a certified copy of the docu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cases hereinafter mentioned. Section 65 mentions the cases in which secondary evidence can be given of the existence, condition or contents of a document. One of the cases included in the list is detailed in clause (f) of the Section which reads thus: When the original is a document of which a certified copy is permitted by this Act, or by any other law in force in India, to be given in evidence. 12. Section 57 of the Registration Act 1908 enables anyone to apply for copy of the entries in Book No. 1 (the said Book is meant for keeping the register of the documents as well as non-testamentary documents relating to immovable property). When any person applies for a copy of it the same shall be given to him. Sub-section (5) of Sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ords may be accepted as evidence in the Section indicate that there is no compulsion on the court to accept such transaction as evidence, but it is open to the court to treat them as evidence. Merely accepting them as evidence does not mean that the court is bound to treat them as reliable evidence. What is sought to be achieved is that the transactions recorded in the documents may be treated as evidence, just like any other evidence, and it is for the court to weigh all the pros and cons to decide whether such transaction can be relied on for understanding the real price of the land concerned. 15. There are similar enabling provisions in other statutes by which the courts are allowed to treat the facts stated in certain documents as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duction of section 51A the position would remain the same as before. 17. In the light of the above discussion we are unable to concur with the observations made by the two judge bench in the decisions in Inder Singh vs. UOI 1993 (3) SCC 340 and P. Ram Reddy vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad : [1995]1SCR584 (Supra) that even in spite of Section 51A of the Act certified copies of the sale-deed could not be considered without examining persons connected with the transactions mentioned therein. 18. The High Court cannot therefore be faulted for relying on the transactions recorded in Ex.A2 and A4 though no one was examined for proving such transactions. No evidence had been adduced by the state for creating any doubt regarding the b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
