Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Gau) 582

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.
Md. Makaddas Ali Mazumdar, S/o. Late Jonab Ali Mazumdar – Petitioner
Versus
Md. Aftab Uddin Bobhuiya, S/o. Md. Masaddar Ali Borbhuiya and Ors. – Respondents
RSA No.277 Of 2010
Decided On : 11-06-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Shri S. Ali.
For the Respondents: Shri N. Haque.

IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for proper proof of documents, such as death certificates and sale deeds, in accordance with the law, and the application of relevant provisions of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 and the Registration Act in determining the admissibility and validity of such documents.

Headnote:
Death Certificate - Land Dispute - Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 - Section 12, Section 17, Section 24 of the Registration Act - The court discussed the authenticity of death certificates and the interpretation of sale deeds in the context of land dispute. The court relied on the provisions of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 and the Registration Act to determine the validity of the documents presented by the parties.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed a suit for declaration of right, title and interest, confirmation of possession and permanent injunction, claiming to have purchased land from the mother and father of the defendant. The defendant contested the authenticity of the deeds and raised a counter claim.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the death certificate presented by the appellant was not deemed a certified extract of the registrar of birth and death, and therefore, not admissible as evidence. The court also noted that the sale deeds were not proved in accordance with the law, as no competent witnesses were examined to establish their authenticity.
Issues: The issues revolved around the authenticity of the death certificates and the interpretation of the sale deeds, including the district of registration and the absence of competent witnesses to prove their validity.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the lack of proper proof for the death certificate and sale deeds, as well as the application of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 and the Registration Act in determining the admissibility and validity of the documents.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, finding in favor of the defendant.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Shri S. Ali, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Shri N. Haque, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The present appeal has been preferred against a Judgment and decree dated 13.07.2010 passed by the learned District Judge, Hailakandi in Title Appeal No. 06/2007 whereby the Judgment and Decree dated 18.11.2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Hailakandi in Title Suit No. 28/2002 has been affirmed and the appeal has been dismissed. The appellant was the plaintiff in the suit.

3. The suit was instituted for declaration of right, title and interest, confirmation of possession and for permanent injunction. It is the projected case of the plaintiff that the land was purchased by the plaintiff from the mother of the defendant by a registered Deed No. 2480 dated 23.06.1986. The plaintiff had purchased further portions of land by registered Deed No. 1006 dated 12.04.2001 from the father of the defendant and on the strength of the aforesaid Sale Deed, the suit was instituted.

4. The present respondent, as defendant however while defending the case has also raised an issue towards questioning the authenticity of the Deeds. It was contended that the mother of the defendant have passed away in the year 1978 and therefore, the Deed No. 2480 could not have been executed in the year 1986. The defendant had also made a counter claim raising the aforesaid challenge.

5. The learned Trial Court vide the Judgment and Decree dated 18.11.2005 had however dismissed the Title Suit No. 28/2002 and the counter claim of the defendant was decreed. As mentioned above, the First Appellate Court had also rejected the Appeal and thereafter the present appeal has been preferred.

6. This Court vide order dated 23.12.2010 had framed the following substantial questions of law.

“(i) Whether the findings of the appellate court was perverse in disbelieving the “ Exhibit-27”, which is the death certificate of Golapjan Bibi wherefrom it transpires that she died on 12.08.1986, giving preference to “Exhibit-Cha” without calling for the original “Register of Birth & Death” maintained by the Registrar of Birth & Death, Algapur Primary Health Center, District – Hailakandi?

(ii) Whether the judgment and decree of the first appellate court is perverse and liable to be set aside and reversed for non-consideration of the documents exhibited on behalf of the plaintiff particularly the document marked as “Exhibit-X” which has thrown light upon the entire case?

iii. Whether the first appellate court wrongly interpreted documents “Exhibit-2” (Sale Deed) and “Exhibit-3” (Sale Deed) to arrive at perverse findings with regard to the title of the plaintiff in respect of the suit land?”

7. Shri Ali, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the controversy was revolving on Exhibit 27 which is the Death Certificate dated 12.08.1986 exhibited by the plaintiff and Exhibit-Cha which is also a Death Certificate wherein the date of death was stated to be 04.05.1978 and was exhibited by the defendant. It is submitted that since both the aforesaid exhibits were certified copies, those were to be treated as secondary evidence and without calling for the original register, a conclusive finding could not have been arrived at whereby Exhibit-Cha was given preference over Exhibit-27.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant has also raised an issue that though vide Exhbit-‘Cha’ the date of death of the mother of the defendant has been stated to be 04.05.1978, the certificate was issued only in the year 2002, i,e., after 24 years which itself raises serious doubts on the authenticity of the said document. It is strenuously contended that such Certificate having been applied for and issued after the institution of the suit, the same should not have been taken into cognizance by the learned Courts below. It is submitted that both the Sale Deeds No. 2480 dated 23.06.1986 and 1006 dated 12.04.2001 were duly registered which itself raises a presumption in favo