1. The plaintiff is the appellant. He was successful in the trial court in O.S.No.450 of 1996 of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Eluru. He was unsuccessful in the lower appellate court in Appeal Suit No.153 of 2001 of the II Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru. He filed the suit for rectification of boundaries mentioned in the sale deed dated 20.05.1977 executed by him in favour of the 1st defendant (registration extract of which is marked as Ex.A-1) and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his right of passage in ABCDEF of the plaint plan.

2. Subject matter of dispute in the suit is Ac.0.13 cents of land in R.S.No.272/8 of Pinakadimi village. According to the plaintiff, the said land was demarcated as passage for men, cattle and carts intended for benefit of owners of entire land in R.S.No.272/3 to 7 and it has been in existence from times immemorial. It is shown as ABCDEF in the plaint plan. It is alleged by the plaintiff that while executing registered sale deed dated 20.05.1977 (Ex.A-1) in respect of Ac.0.45 cents in R.S.No.272/4 in favour of the 1st defendant by the plaintiff, mutual mistake crept in by not mentioning the said passage on Eastern side of the land sold there under. It is stated that in February, 1995, the defendants caused obstruction for using the passage of the plaintiff illegally.

3. After death of the 1st defendant during pendency of the suit, the defendants 3 to 7 were impleaded as his legal representatives. They remained exparte in the trial court. The 2nd defendant was the only contestant. The 2nd defendant and his brother purchased 1350 sq. yards out of Ac.0.45 cents in R.S.No.272/4 from the 1st defendant under Ex.B-4 registered sale deed dated 12.02.1996 which was preceded by an agreement for sale. While, denying claim of the plaintiff in ABCDEF and mistake in mentioning Eastern boundary in Ex.A-1 sale deed, the 2nd defendant contends that the suit for rectification is barred by limitation. According to the 2nd defendant, the passage never extended beyond his site and the plaintiff has been exercising his right of passage over panchayat road lying towards East of the defendants’ site.

4. The only point of law raised by the appellant’s counsel before this Court during the course of arguments is whether true copies of revenue records issued by Village Administrative Officer (VAO) can be relied upon as evidence under the Indian Evidence Act. In this case, the trial court relied upon Exs.A-2, A-3 and A-5 true copies of No.3 Adangal, No.10(1) Account and Field Measurement Book Plan issued by V.A.O., of Pinakadimi village. The lower appellate court took the view that no reliance can be placed on such true copies issued by V.A.O., in the absence of summoning of original documents.

5. As per Section 61 of the Evidence Act, (in short, the Act) contents of the documents may be proved either by primary or by secondary evidence. As per Section 62 of the Act, primary evidence means the document itself produced for inspection of the court. Section 63 of the Act gives list of secondary evidence. As per Section 63(1) of the Act, certified copies given under the provisions contained in the Act, are secondary evidence. Further, Section 63(3) of the Act says that copies made from or compared with the original, are also pieces of secondary evidence. Section 64 of the Act prescribes that documents must be proved by primary evidence except in accordance with other provisions of the Act. Section 65 of the Act gives list of contingencies in which secondary evidence relating to documents challenged. Unless a party proves existence of conditions set out in Clauses (a) to (g) of Section 65 of the Act, secondary evidence cannot be allowed. It is only in case of existence of conditions mentioned in Clause (e) and (f) of Section 65 of the Act, certified copy of a document is admissible. Clauses (e) and (f) of Section 65 of the Act read as follows:

(e) When the ori