SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1982 Supreme(AP) 118

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : A.RAMANUJULU NAIDU
Kadiam Paparao - Appellant
Versus
Siddireddy Satyanarayana - Respondent
Decided On : 04-16-82

Evidence given before a person authorised by law to take it, such as a Registrar in an enquiry under Section 75(4) of the Indian Registration Act, is admissible in a subsequent judicial proceeding or at a later stage of the same judicial proceeding, subject to the conditions mentioned in Section 33 of the Evidence Act.

Headnote:

EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 - SECTION 33 - INDIAN REGISTRATION ACT, 1908 - SECTION 75(4) - ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE - EVIDENCE GIVEN BEFORE REGISTRAR IN ENQUIRY UNDER SECTION 75(4) OF THE INDIAN REGISTRATION ACT IS ADMISSIBLE IN A SUBSEQUENT SUIT.

Fact of the Case:

In a suit based on a sale deed, the petitioner sought to receive the deposition of the first plaintiff, who had died during the pendency of the suit, given before the sub-Registrar in an enquiry under Section 75(4) of the Indian Registration Act.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the evidence of the first plaintiff given before the Registrar in an enquiry under Section 75 of the Act is admissible in evidence under Section 33 of the Evidence Act, subject to the limitations contained in Section 33.

Issues: Whether the evidence of a witness before the Registrar in an enquiry under Section 75(4) of the Indian Registration Act is admissible in a subsequent suit.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 33 of the Evidence Act makes it clear that evidence given before any person authorised by law to take it is relevant in a subsequent judicial proceeding or in a later stage of the same judicial proceeding, subject to certain conditions.

Final Decision: The court allowed the civil revision petition and set aside the order of the subordinate Judge, holding that the evidence of the first plaintiff given before the Registrar in an enquiry under Section 75(4) of the Indian Registration Act is admissible in the subsequent suit.

AMARESWARI RAMANUJULU NAIDU, J.

( 1 ) THE short question that arises for consideration in this revision petition is whether the evidence of a witness before the Registrar in an enquiry under Sec. 75 (4) of the Indian registration Act is admissible in a subsequent suit.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is third plaintiff in O. s. No. 10 of 1976. The second plaintiff is his adoptive mother and the first plaintiff is his adoptive father. The first plaintiff died during the pendency of the suit. The suit was based on a sale deed dated 28-6-1974 which was the subject matter of an enquiry before the sub-Registrar. Rajahmundry on O. E. No. 1 of 1974. In that enquiry the first plaintiff deposed the circumstances under which the sale deed was executed by the defendants as the first plaintiff died during the pendency of the suit this petition was filed to receive his deposition, given before the sub-Registrar for a Just decision in this suit.

( 3 ) THE respondents opposed the petition primarily on the ground that O. F. No. 1 of 1974 was not a judicial proceeding. They also contended that the execution of the sale deed was not substantially in issue in this suit and hence it is not relevant.

( 4 ) THE learned subordinate Judge, Rajahmundry by his order dated 31-3-1980 dismissed the application on the sole ground that the proceeding and hence the deposition given in such a proceeding is not admissible in evidence.

( 5 ) IN this revision petition Mr. M. Jagannadha Rao the learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the order of the trial Court is patently illegal and erroneous. He submitted that under sec. 33 of the Evidence Act evidence given by a witness before any person authorised by law to take it. Is relevant for the purpose of proving in a subsequent judicial proceeding or in a later stage of the same judicial proceeding the truth of the facts which it states when the witness is dead or cannot be found. In the present case the registrar or the sub-Registrar Acting under section 75 of the Indian Registration Act is empowered to record evidence to summon and enforce the attendance of witnesses and compel them to give evidence. Therefore the evidence of the first plaintiff given before the Registrar in an enquiry under sec. 75 of the Act is admissible in evidence.

( 6 ) TO appreciate this contention it is useful to extract sec. 33 of the evidence Act:-"33. Evidence given by a witness in a judicial proceeding. Or before any person authorized by law to take it is relevant for the purpose of proving in a subsequent judicial proceeding. Or in a later stage of the same judicial proceeding the truth of the facts which it states when the witness is dead or cannot be found or is incapable of giving evidence or is kept out of the way by the adverse party or if his presence cannot be obtained without an amount of delay or expense which under the circumstances of the case the Court considers unreasonable:- Provided that the proceeding was between the same parties or their representative in interest: that the adverse party in the first proceeding had the right and opportunity to cross-examine that the questions in issue were substantially the same in first as in the second proceeding". A reading of this section makes it clear that it is not only the evidence given in a judicial proceeding but the evidence given before any person authorised by law to take it is admissible in evidence The expression or used in sec. 33 indicates that not only the evidence given in a judicial proceeding but evidence given before any person who is authorised by law to take it is relevant in a subsequent judicial proceeding or in a later stage of the same judicial proceeding subject of course to the conditions mentioned therein namely, when the witness is dead or cannot be found etc.

( 7 ) SECTION 75 of the indian registration Act is as follows:-"75. Order by Registrar to register and procedure thereon - (1) If the Registrar finds that the document has been executed and



Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top