Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. Gavai, C.T. Ravikumar, JJ.
Appaiya - Appellant
Versus
Andimuthu@ Thangapandi & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 14630 of 2015 (@ SLP (C) No.10013 of 2015)
Decided On : 20-09-2023
(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 100 – Second appeal – Findings of facts concurrently recorded by Court below are immune from challenge before High Court in Second Appeal as First Appellate Court is final Court on facts – However, it is not an inviolable position of law – Being concurrent findings on facts is no guarantee for an imprimatur from High Court as under certain situations interference under Section 100, CPC after formulating substantial question (s) of law is permissible – In order to be substantial question of law, test is whether it is of general public importance or whether it directly or substantially affects right of parties or whether the question is still open – When court is called upon to interpret documents and examine their effect, depending upon nature of controversy and issues involved, it would constitute substantial question (s) of law. (Paras 8, 9, 12 and 14)
(B) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 65, 77 and 79 – Registration Act, 1908 – Section 57(5) – Secondary evidence – Secondary evidence relating to documents may be given of existence, condition or contents of a document in various cases given thereunder – There is permissibility for production of certified copy as secondary evidence in law, in regard to existence, condition or contents of a document – Certified copy of sale deed is admissible in evidence for the purpose of proving contents of original document. (Paras 20 and 22)
Facts of the case:
Captioned appeal by special leave is directed against Judgment dated 17.10.2012 passed by Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in Second Appeal (MD) No. 802 of 2004 whereby and whereunder it reversed the concurrent judgments of the courts below decreeing suit with regard to title and possession of the entire suit property and confined the plaintiff’s (appellant herein), entitlement to title and possession to 96 cents purchased under sale deed.
Findings of Court:
High Court in exercise of the power under Section 100 CPC, ought not have interfered with the findings of the trial Court judgment and decree of the trial Court which were confirmed by the First Appellate Court. Accordingly, impugned judgment of High Court invites interference.
Result : Appeal allowed.
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 (!) .
JUDGMENT :
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
1. The captioned appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment dated 17.10.2012 passed by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court in Second Appeal (MD) No. 802 of 2004 whereby and whereunder it reversed the concurrent judgments of the courts below decreeing the suit with regard to the title and possession of the entire suit property and confined the plaintiff’s (appellant herein), entitlement to title and possession to 96 cents purchased under Ext. A5 sale deed. To be precise, as per the judgment impugned, the judgment dated 03.07.2001 in A.S.No.65/97 of the Sub-Court, Periyankulam confirming the judgment and decree dated 30.09.1997 in O.S.No.104/96 of the District Munsif-cum- Judicial Magistrate, Andipatti, was set aside to the aforesaid extent. The appellant herein was the plaintiff and the respondent Nos. 1 and 6 were respectively defendant Nos. 3 and 2, in the stated suit. Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 are the legal representatives of the deceased first defendant. The subject suit was filed seeking declaration that the entire suit property belonged to the plaintiff and for a consequential prayer for permanent injunction against the defendants.
2. The case of the appellant – (plaintiff) in nut-shell, relevant for the purpose of disposal of the appeal, is as follows :-
On 09.08.1918, Vellaiya Thevar executed a mortgage deed for the loan availed from Irulappan, the father of appellant’s vendor- Puliyankaladi, in respect of the suit property having an extent of 2 acres and 61 cents comprised in Survey No.845/1 of Thimmanayakanur village in Andipatti Taluk of Madurai District. Default in repayment of loan amount made Puliyankaladi to file O.S. No.519/1928 against sons of Vellaiya Thevar viz., Thavasi Thevar, Kuruppa Thevar, Subbaiah Thevar and Sangu Thevar and it was decreed in favour of Puliyankaladi. In order to satisfy the decree, they sold the property to Puliyankaladi as per Ext. A1 registered sale deed No.1209/1928 dated 27.08.1928. Puliyankaladi, thereafter executed a mortgage deed of the suit property in favour of Veluchamy and Vellamal. On 31.05.1961 he executed another mortgage deed in favour of Veluchamy and Velammal. The said mortgage deeds were redeemed by the appellant (plaintiff) on 24.06.1963. Ultimately, the appellant purchased the suit property from Puliyankaladi and his family members namely, Irulan, Balakrishnan and Balakrishnan’s minor children Senthilkumaran and Backialakshmi on 15.07.1963 as per sale deed No.1759/1963 of SRO, Andipatti. Since then, he has been in its possession and enjoyment. After mutating it in his name in the revenue records he obtained patta and has been paying kist to the government. The defendants are strangers having lands on the southern and northern sides of the suit property. They demanded him to sell the property to them and on being refused they turned inimical to him and started disturbing his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. On 05.06.1994, the defendants along with some others attempted to trespass into his property, but it was thwarted with the help of co-villagers.
3. The first and the third defendants filed written statement in the suit mainly refuting the averment that the entire suit property belonged to Puliyankaladi and contending that it is incorrect and false and therefore, the plaintiff may be put to strict proof. The further case of the defendants was that out of the total extent of the property in Survey No.845/1, 75 cents belonged to Thavasi Andi Thevar, Veluthai Ammal and the first defendant, and son of Thavasi Andi Thevar, Veluthai Ammal and the first defendant executed a registered mortgage deed on 14.09.1961 in favour of Pomminayakkanpatti Palaniammal for Rs. 1000/-. Further, as per sale deed No.2178/1974 of Andipatti Sub- Registry the third defendant purchased 30 cents in Survey No.845/1 and its well, 1/5th Kamalaivari channel and ½ of the Kamalaivari channel on the western side and since then she has b
Being concurrent findings on facts is no guarantee for an imprimatur from High Court as under certain situations interference under Section 100, CPC after formulating substantial question (s) of law ....
The admissibility of certified copies of documents from public records can substantiate claims of ownership, overriding challenges based on the absence of original documents.
The court ruled that while a certified copy of a sale deed is admissible as secondary evidence, it does not suffice to prove the execution of the deed, which must demonstrate intention and legal vali....
The court established that secondary evidence is inadmissible without a foundational explanation for the absence of primary evidence, emphasizing strict adherence to evidentiary rules.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the presumption of genuineness attached to a registered document and the burden of proof in challenging its validity.
A registered sale deed, while presumptive, does not confer title over property without substantiated evidence of prior ownership and possession.
The court affirmed that a registered sale deed establishes title, while failure to comply with statutory notice requirements under tenancy law renders claims voidable.
The possession is a pure question of fact, and the findings of fact recorded by the lower courts cannot be interfered with unless they are based on no evidence or are perverse.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
