Admission of execution of registered sale deed, despite denial of contents as loan security, requires court to mark it as exhibit; proof of contents separate; trial court erred in refusal.

JUDGMENT :

AJIT B.KADETHANKAR, J.

Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the petition is heard for final disposal.

2. Subject-matter :-

Refusal of the Trial Court to mark Exhibit to vital documents in the Suit constrained the Petitioner to file present Writ Petition. Vide Order dated 05.04.2023 in Regular Civil Suit No. 41 of 2012, the learned Civil Judge (J.D.) Loha Dist. Nanded rejected the petitioner/plaintiff’s application that was filed requesting to mark identification number to two sale deeds which are crucial in the Suit.

3. Moot point: Facts of the case and the reasoning rendered by the Trial Court calls for adjudication on following points:-

(1) What if execution of a registered sale deed is admitted, but contents & object is denied;

(2) Evidentiary value of a document given identification number in a Suit; and

(3) The appropriate stage to give identification to a document in a Suit.

4. Facts in brief:

4.1 The petitioner filed Regular Civil Suit No.41 of 2012 against the respondents in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Loha, Dist. Nanded, seeking declaration as to his ownership of the suit properties.

A consequential relief of perpetual Injunction against the defendant restraining him from disturbing the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the suit property, is also prayed in the suit. Suit properties are two pieces of agricultural lands.

4.2 The petitioner’s case in brief is that the suit properties were originally owned by the respondent/defendant who sold those to one Khandu Undade by execution of two separate sale deeds registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar Class-II of the concerned region.

4.3 A piece of 40 R was sold by the defendant to Khandu Undade vide a sale deed dated 25.07.1997 registered on 25.07.1997 at Serial No.1680 of 1997. Another piece of 20 R was sold by the Defendant to Khandu Undade vide a sale deed dated 16.04.1998 registered in the office of the concerned Sub-Registrar, Class-II at Serial No. 843 of 1998.

4.4 The purchaser i.e. Khandu Undade later sold the said properties to other persons. The petitioner purchased those properties from the subsequent purchasers. The petitioner thus describes the flow of title in his name and seeks declaration of ownership to the said property. The relevant pleadings of the plaintiff could be read as under:-

4.5 As stated above, the respondent is the original owner. Controversy arose due to the quantum of balance area remained in his name in the revenue record.

4.6 The Respondent defended the suit by filing written statement. In the written statement at third sub-paragraph of main paragraph 13, the defendant agreed execution of those two sale deeds in favor of Khandu Undade. However the Defendant submitted that it was not a sale deed in fact. As per his case, he executed the sale deeds in favor of Khandu Undade against a loan borrowed from Khandu. That, upon repayment of the loan with interest, Khandu was to re-convey the properties under transaction to him. The relevant sub-paragraph is reproduced as follows:-

4.7 During the course of Trial, the petitioner filed an application under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act seeking leave to lead secondary evidence thereby producing certified copies of the aforesaid two sale deeds.

4.8 After hearing the parties, the application below Exh.85 came to be allowed vide order dated 22.03.2017 allowing the petitioner to lead secondary evidence to prove the contents of the sale deeds. The respondent never challenged the order dated 22.03.2017, and as such it is intact today.

4.9 Thereafter, the petitioner filed present application at Exh.113 thereby requesting to give identification number i.e. exhibit number to the certified copies of