A registration copy of a deed of partition is admissible in evidence under section 60 (2) of the Indian Registration Act, and the presumption under section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act cannot be applied to a copy of a document.

Headnote:
PARTITION - PROOF OF PARTITION - REGISTRATION COPY OF DEED OF PARTITION - ADMISSIBILITY - PRESUMPTION UNDER SECTION 90 OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT - SECTION 60 (2) OF THE INDIAN REGISTRATION ACT - EFFECT.
Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff filed a suit for partition of the suit land into three equal shares by metes and bounds and for separate possession of the plaintiff's 1/3rd share and for mesne profits till delivery of possession. The defendant contended that Gattappa had another brother by name Tiruvengalappa and that the property survived to him on Gattappa's death and that he purchased the property from Tiruvengalappa's daughter.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the registration copy of the deed of partition, Exhibit A-22, was admissible in evidence under section 60 (2) of the Indian Registration Act, and that the parties to Exhibit A-22 admitted their execution before the Sub-Registrar. The court also found that there were several circumstances which would lead to the conclusion that Gattappa was separated from his brothers.
Issues: 1. Whether the registration copy of the deed of partition, Exhibit A-22, was admissible in evidence? 2. Whether the presumption under section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act could be applied to a copy of a document? 3. Whether there was a partition between Gattappa and his brothers?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the registration copy of the deed of partition, Exhibit A-22, was admissible in evidence under section 60 (2) of the Indian Registration Act, which provides that a certified copy of a registered document shall be received in evidence as if it were the original document. 2. The court held that the presumption under section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act could not be applied to a copy of a document, as the presumption only applies to documents that are actually produced before the court. 3. The court found that there was a partition between Gattappa and his brothers based on the evidence of the registration copy of the deed of partition, Exhibit A-22, and other circumstances such as payment of cist separately.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the second appeal with costs.

( 1 ) THE defendant in O. S. No. 213 of 1957, on the file of the District munsiff s Court, Gooty is the appellant in this second appeal. The suit was for partition of the suit land into three equal shares by metes and bounds and for separate possession of the plaintiff s 1/3rd share and for mesne profits till delivery of possession. According to the plaintiff, the suit land was purchased by him from one Agraharam Hanumakka, daughter of Gattappa, for a sum of Rs. 300 on 8th May, 1951, and was in possession of the same ever since. The suit land as well as the other 2/3rds share in the entire extent was in possession of the plaintiff as a lessee for over 40 years. The plaint schedule land bearing S. No. 31 is about Ac. 10-70 cents in extent. According to the plaintiff, the entire land in the said S. No. fell to the share of Gattappa, Kesavayya and Viswanathamayya in a partition on 2nd September, 1912. Therefore, the said Gattappa had a right to a one-third share therein. He had no male issue and so, the share of Gattappa devolved Upon his daughter, Hanumakka. While so, the defendants unlawfully entered into the suit land in 1957. Since the plaintiff has purchased the 1/3rd share of Gattappa, he is entitled to the decree for partition. Among other pleas, the defendant contended that Gattappa had another brother by name Tiruvengalappa and that the property survived to him on Gattappa s death and that he purchased the property from Tiruvengalappa s daughter. Therefore, on those pleadings, the question was whether Gattappa had a 1/3rd share in S. No. 31 and whether he was divided from his brothers, so that his share devolved upon his daughter, Hanumakka. Both the courts below held that Gattappa was divided from his brothers and that his 1/3rd share in the suit property devolved upon his daughter, Hanumakka. On that ground, they decreed partition. In arriving at the conclusion that there was a partition between Gattappa and his other brothers, the Courts below relied upon a registration copy of the deed of partition, Exhibit A-22 dated 14th November, 1907. The original document was not produced.

( 2 ) THE point taken by Mr. R. Subba Rao, the learned Counsel for the appellant is that Exhibit A-22 is wholly inadmissible in evidence because it is not proved. It is further argued that the Courts below erroneously drew a presumption "under section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act as Exhibit A-22 was only a registration copy and not the original. In support of this, reliance is placed upon the decisions in Ramanna v. Sambamoorthy, A. I. R. 1961 A. P. 361.

( 3 ) HARIHAR Prasad v. Deonarain Prasad, 1956 SCJ 279 : A. I. R 1956 SC 305, Sital Das v. Sant Ram, A. I. R. 1954 S. C. 606 and Venkata Ratnam v. Sitaramayya, 1950 1 M. LJ. 720 : A. IR 1950 Mad 634.

( 4 ) THE proposition is now well settled that the presumption under section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act may be drawn only with regard to the document actually produced before the Court and when the parties produced before the Court only a copy, the presumption cannot be applied that the original was duly executed by the person by whom it purported to have been executed. He further contended that the other evidence of conduct of the partition does not justify the inference that there was a partition between Gattappa and his brothers.

( 5 ) ON behalf of the respondent, Mr. Krishnaiah argued that, apart from section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, since what was produced in the Courts below is a registration extract granted under the Indian Registration Act, there is sufficient proof of admission of the execution of the document by the persons, who purported to execute it. In support of this, the following decisions were cited: (1) Indernath Modi v. Nandram, AIR 1957 Raj. 241, (2) Lakshmayya v. Tirupathamma, A. I. R. 1958 A. P. 720. (3) Gopal Das v. Sri Thakurji,1943 2 M. L. J. 51 : A. I. R. 1943 P. C. 83. (4) Kashibai v. Vinayak, A. I. R 1956 Bom. 65.

( 6 ) IN the last-mentioned case, Gajendragad

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

1966 Supreme(AP) 48

Andhra Pradesh High CourtJudges : CHANDRASEKHARA SASTRIVasa Thulasi Rao - AppellantVersusPeetla Pedda Anjanayya - RespondentDecided On : 02-28-66

A registration copy of a deed of partition is admissible in evidence under section 60 (2) of the Indian Registration Act, and the presumption under section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act cannot be applied to a copy of a document.

Cases Referred (2)

Judicial Analysis

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : CHANDRASEKHARA SASTRI
Vasa Thulasi Rao - Appellant
Versus
Peetla Pedda Anjanayya - Respondent
Decided On : 02-28-66