Admissibility of documents in court proceedings hinges on clear admissions in pleadings, validating secondary evidence despite objections regarding public or private document status under the Indian Evidence Act.

JUDGMENT :

MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA, J.

1. Heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. H.K. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. S.K. Singh, the learned senior counsel appearing through Video Conferencing assisted by Mr. P. Sundi, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners, namely, Rama Devi Himatsingka and Rajesh Himatsingka impugning the order dated 11.09.2024 passed in Title Suit No. 72/2014 by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), No. 2, Sonitpur, Tezpur, whereby the application filed by the present petitioners under Section 63 of the Indian EVIDENCE ACT , 1872 was rejected and the respondent was allowed to exhibit the sale deed No. 1173/1961 dated 28.08.1961 as Exhibit-2.

3. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant Civil Revision Petition, in brief, are that the present respondent No.1 as plaintiff had instituted a title suit being Title Suit No. 72/2014 for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit premises and also for relief that the mutation of defendant No. 2 and that of his father in respect of the suit property is illegal.

4. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in the aforesaid suit, the respondent exhibited a certified copy of the sale deed No. 1173/1961 dated 28.08.1961. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that since the original sale deed was not produced by the respondent no. 1 before the Trial Court, hence, the present petitioners had filed an application under Section 63 of the Indian EVIDENCE ACT , 1872 objecting to the admissibility of the said sale deed without following the requirement as prescribed under Section 65 of the Indian EVIDENCE ACT , 1872.

5. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted that however, by the impugned order the Trial Court held the Exhibit No. 2 to be a public document and erroneously held that there is no requirement of fulfilling the norms laid down in Section 65 of the Indian EVIDENCE ACT , 1872 before admitting the said sale deed.

6. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the trial court had erred in holding that the sale deed which is exhibited as Exhibit No. 2 is a public document. He submits that the Apex Court in the case of Deccan Paper Mills Co. Ltd. vs. Regency Mahavir Properties and Others , (2021) 4 SCC 786 have very clearly held that a sale deed which is a deed of conveyance is not a public document but a private document. He relies up- on the following observations made by the Apex Court in the aforesaid case:

“22. Let us see whether Section 31(2) makes any difference to this position in law. According to the judgment in Aliens Developers (P) Ltd. v. Janardhan Reddy, 2015 SCC OnLine Hyd 370 : (2016) 1 ALT 194 (DB), the moment a registered instrument is cancelled, the effect being to re- move it from a public register, the adjudicatory effect of the court would make it a judgment in rem. Further, only a competent court is empowered to send the cancellation decree to the officer concerned, to effect such cancellation and “note on the copy of the instrument contained in his books the fact of its cancellation”. Both reasons are incorrect. An action that is started under Section 31(1) cannot be said to be in personam when an unregistered instrument is cancelled and in rem when a registered instrument is cancelled. The suit that is filed for cancellation cannot be in personam only for unregistered instruments by virtue of the fact that the decree for cancellation does not involve its being sent to the registration office — a ministerial actio