A certified copy of a registered sale deed is classified as a public document and admissible as secondary evidence without formal proof under relevant provisions of the Evidence Act.

JUDGMENT :

Arun Kumar Jha, J.

The instant petition has been filed by the defendants/petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 02.08.2018 passed by the learned Munsif, Begusarai in Title Suit No. 69 of 1996 whereby and whereunder the prayer made by the plaintiffs to accept and mark as an exhibit a certified copy of sale deed was allowed.

2. Briefly stated, the facts, as it emerges from the record, are that the respondents as plaintiffs filed have Title Suit No. 69 of 1996 before the learned trial court seeking following reliefs:-

“(i) A decree of redemption with respect to the suit land be passed in favour of the plaintiffs treating the alleged sale-deed document dated 10.10.1984 a mortgage deed in favour of defendants with a finding that the plaintiffs have already paid the mortgaged money to the defendants.

(ii) An order or temporary injunction be passed in favour of the plaintiffs and defendants.

(iii) A decree of xxxxx cost be passed in favour of the plaintiffs and defendants.

(iv) A decree of any other relief or reliefs be passed in favour of plaintiffs as the court think fit and proper.”

The father of plaintiff no.1 and grandfather of plaintiff nos. 2 and 3 Ramdeo Singh took a loan of Rs. 7,000/- from the father of defendants/petitioners, Deo Narain Singh, in the year 1984 and executed a registered deed of mortgage dated 10.10.1984 for his land in favour of Deo Narain Singh as a security. Ramdeo Singh and Deo Narain Singh agreed before the villagers that on payment of Rs. 7,000/- to Deo Narain Singh, he would re-convey the land measuring 15 kathas of Survey Plot No. 159 to Ramdeo Singh. Deo Narain Singh was paid in installments the money borrowed by Ramdeo Singh and after death of Ramdeo Singh, plaintiff no.1 went to the defendants in the year 1991 and asked them to receive the balance amount and return their land but defendants/respondents refused the request on 15.03.1995. It further transpires that on getting notice, the defendants/respondents appeared and filed their written statement stating inter alia that the plaintiff no.1 along with his father had executed a sale deed in favour of the father of the defendants on 10.10.1984 with respect to the subject matter of the present suit and the deed was registered before the Registrar, Begusarai. For this reason, the plaintiffs/respondents could not make out a case against the recital of the sale deed executed by them. The defendants further claimed that they acquired right and title and interest by virtue of sale deed dated 10.10.1984 and came in exclusive possession of the land transferred through the said sale deed. The defendants also got their names mutated in the revenue records and started paying rent and were issued rent receipts. During pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs/respondents filed an application on 16.05.2018 in the trial court with prayer to admit certified copy of sale deed dated 21.05.1990 executed by Ram Briksha Singh, defendant/petitioner no.1, in favour of Ajay Kumar Singh treating the said document as a public document. A rejoinder was filed challenging the maintainability of the application and also on the ground that it has no relevance in the present suit. The learned trial court, however, admitted the aforesaid document and marked it exhibit and thus, allowed the application dated 16.05.2018 vide impugned order dated 02.08.2018.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendants/petitioners submitted that the learned trial court was not justified in accepting the sale deed executed by petitioner no.1 in favour of Ajay Kumar Singh treating it to be a public document. Learned counsel further submitted that certifi