The main legal point established in the judgment is that a certified copy of a registered document, while admissible as secondary evidence, does not have precedence over the original document in case of discrepancies, based on the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Vexed legal question, having a serious impact on the property rights of persons, arising for resolution in this second appeal is as follows:

When there are discrepancies, in the description of property or recitals, between an assignment deed and a true copy of the same, filed at the time of presentation of the document for registration, which will have a precedence over the other?

2. Brief facts: Appellant is the defendant in a suit for prohibitory injunction filed by the respondent, for restraining the former from removing a fence on the eastern side of plaint A schedule pathway and for preventing him from trespassing into any portion of the property or reducing the width of plaint A schedule pathway.

3. An extent of 27.283 cents of land in survey No.1354/3 was purchased by the respondent/plaintiff as per Exts.A1 and A2 documents. Respondent sold 16.75 cents of land from out of the above mentioned extent. Thereafter, she is in possession of 10.533 cents, which includes the pathway admeasuring 2.45 cents. Respondent's residential building is situated in the rest of the area, which is described in the plaint B schedule. Appellant is residing on the eastern side of plaint A schedule pathway. There is a fence put up to demarcate the plaint A schedule pathway and the appellant's property. Appellant attempted to remove the fence in order to reduce the width of pathway. With these allegations the suit is filed.

4. Appellant filed a written statement contending that the respondent is not in possession of plaint A schedule property. Allegation that the appellant attempted to trespass is false. According to the appellant, there is no fence on the eastern side of the plaint A schedule property. He was a kudikidappukaran and he obtained purchase of 10 cents of land as per the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1973. Total extent of land in his possession is 11.739 cents. According to the appellant, the pathway leading to the respondent's property is having a width of 10 ft. only. Contentions in the plaint are untrue and therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the suit.

5. Learned trial Judge dismissed the suit on finding that the respondent/plaintiff did not approach the court with clean hands and therefore, she was not entitled to get an equitable relief of prohibitory injunction. The lower appellate court reversed the decree of trial court, finding that the incongruities noted between Ext.A1 and a copy of the document filed at the time of registration were not on account of the respondent's fault. It also found that a property with the description in the schedule to Ext.A1 could be unambiguously identified and erroneous representation of the same in the copy of the document, filed before the Sub Registrar, is of no significance. The lower appellate court further found that Ext.A1 original title deed should prevail over a copy of the same in case of any divergence. It is pertinent to note that Ext.X1 is a certified copy of the true copy of Ext.A1, filed before the Sub Registrar at the time of registration of Ext.A1. Ext.A1 was issued from the Sub Registrar's Office concerned. The dispute is with respect to item No.3 in both Exts.A1 and X1. On a close watch of the descriptions in Exts.A1 and X1, it can be seen that there are some material differences. Admittedly the piece of land included as item No.3 in both the said documents is in a triangular shape. The factual issues touching the dispute in the descriptions could be considered later. I shall initially deal with the legal aspects.

6. Heard Sri. Martin Jose P., learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.C.K.Pavithran, learned counsel for the respondent.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that Ext.X1, being a certified copy of a public document, should have a march over Ext.A1, which is only a private document. This contention of the appellant may give rise to some ancillary legal questions. What is the nature of an original document? Is it a private document or a p