Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. S. Mahendran, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. M.P. Parthiban, Adv. Mr. T.R.B. Sivakumar, Adv.

What is the admissibility of a certified copy of a sale deed as secondary evidence for proving the contents of the original document? What is the scope of interference by the High Court in a second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC when there are concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts? What constitutes a substantial question of law for the purpose of a second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC?

Key Points: - The High Court, in exercise of its power under Section 100 CPC, ought not to have interfered with the concurrent findings of the trial court and the first appellate court, as no grounds justifying such interference existed in this case (!) . - Concurrent findings on facts are not an absolute guarantee for an imprimatur from the High Court, as interference under Section 100, CPC is permissible in certain situations after formulating substantial questions of law [p_IMPORTANT POINT] (!) (!) . - A substantial question of law must be debatable, not previously settled by law or binding precedent, and must have a material bearing on the decision of the case (!) . - Certified copies of registered sale deeds, falling under the definition of public documents, are admissible in evidence for the purpose of proving the contents of the original document under Section 77 and Section 79 of the Evidence Act, read with Section 57(5) of the Registration Act (!) . - The High Court erred in holding that the certified copy of Exhibit A1 was inadmissible due to the non-production of the original and the absence of an independent witness, as this overlooked relevant provisions of the Evidence Act and the Registration Act (!) (!) . - The execution of Exhibit A1 sale deed was not disputed, and its contents were proven by the certified copy, making the application of Sections 90 or 110 of the Evidence Act unnecessary (!) . - The High Court's conclusion that Exhibit A1 did not cover the entire extent of 2 acres and 61 cents was found to be erroneous, as the document unambiguously described the property with that extent and boundaries (!) . - The reversal of the concurrent judgments of the courts below by the High Court was found to be legally unsustainable (!) . - The appeal was allowed, setting aside the High Court's judgment and restoring the judgment of the lower appellate court (!) . - The case involved a dispute over title and possession of a suit property, with the appellant claiming ownership of the entire property based on sale deeds (!) .

What is the admissibility of a certified copy of a sale deed as secondary evidence for proving the contents of the original document?

What is the scope of interference by the High Court in a second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC when there are concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts?

What constitutes a substantial question of law for the purpose of a second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC?