Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
Chandan Mandal S/o Late Sisibala @ Sashi Mandalain – Petitioner
Versus
Lakhi @ Lakhikant Mandal – Respondent
C.M.P. No. 353 of 2022
Decided On : 20-12-2023
Adoption Deed - Hindu Law - Evidence Act - Section 65, Section 74, Section 75, Section 76 - The court discussed the admissibility of certified copies of registered adoption deeds as public documents under Section 65 of the Evidence Act. It highlighted the distinction between public and private documents and the requirement for laying a foundation for accepting secondary evidence of private documents. The judgment emphasized the need for proof of execution of documents and set aside the lower court's order to mark the adoption deed as secondary evidence without formal proof.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff sought to challenge the validity of registered adoption deeds, alleging illegal transfer of lands. The defendants denied surrendering the land and executing any documents in favor of the plaintiff. The court analyzed the admissibility of certified copies of adoption deeds and the requirement for laying a foundation for accepting secondary evidence of private documents.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the lower court erred in assuming the registered adoption deed to be a public document and ordering its marking as secondary evidence without formal proof. It set aside the impugned order, emphasizing the need for laying foundational facts for proving the documents as secondary evidence.
Issues: The primary issue was the admissibility of certified copies of registered adoption deeds as public documents under Section 65 of the Evidence Act and the requirement for laying a foundation for accepting secondary evidence of private documents.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 65, Section 74, Section 75, and Section 76 of the Evidence Act, emphasizing the distinction between public and private documents, the need for laying a foundation for accepting secondary evidence of private documents, and the requirement for proof of execution of documents.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside, concluding that the lower court's decision was not legally sustainable.
JUDGMENT :
PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. Present Civil Miscellaneous petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing/setting aside the order dated 24.05.2022 passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division I, Jamtara in Original Suit No. 49 of 2013, whereby and whereunder learned Civil Judge Senior Division has allowed the application of plaintiff to mark Exhibit the certified copy of registered deed of Adoption No. 128/1983 dated 10.09.1983 and registered deed of Adoption No. 5 of 2012 dated 08.02.2012 on the ground that these documents are public documents requiring no formal proof and certified copies of the deed may be admitted in evidence.
Factual Matrix
2. The case of plaintiff/Respondents is that plaintiffs and defendants both parties are Hindu and governed by Dayabhag school of Hindu Law. The defendant no. 1, Sashibala @ Sashi Mondalain, is the maternal aunt of the plaintiff. Mother of the plaintiff, namely, Bhanumati Mondalain was full sister of late Binod Mondal and late Kedar Mondal of village Bewa who died issueless soon after the survey settlement leaving behind their respective widows namely, Sashi Bala @ Sashimani Mondalain and Dulubala Mondalain. It is alleged that both the above widows were helpless and none were in their family to cultivate lands and properties and they have surrendered all their properties of Binod Mondal and Kedar Mondal in or about 1948 in favour of 4 sons of Bhanumati Dasi @ Mondalain viz. the plaintiff and his other three brothers and they have executed a deed of surrender in favour of the plaintiff and his brother on 08.04.1965 through notary affidavit, thus the plaintiff and his brothers have been possessing the entire properties of Binod Mandal and Kedar Mondal of village Bewa and other Mouja and they are in peaceful cultivating possession till date and living in their houses at Bewa. It is further stated that long before the surrender of the lands, the defendant no. 1 Sashibala @ Sashi Mondalain started living at her father’s place at Village Dhobna but subsequently defendant no. 1’s brother had evil eye to take back the lands through his sister Sashi Bala @ Sashimani Mondalain and got a deed of adoption executed and registered in favour of one Amit Kumar Mondal son of Sadhu Chandra Mondal vide deed of Adoption No. 128 of 1983. Thereafter, Amit Kumar Mondal and his father Sadhu Chandra Mondal with a view to dispossess the plaintiffs and his brothers from the properties of Binod Mondal and Kedar Mondal induced Sashibala @ Sashi Mondalain to transfer the non-transferable lands of the plaintiffs, which are recorded in the name of Binod Mondal and Kedar Mondal and executed some fake and illegal transfer of lands in favour of defendant no. 2 Madan Mondal against which also the plaintiff has filed RE Case No. 7/11-12 in the Court of SDO, Jamtara and to legalize the said illegal transfer the defendant no. 1 illegally executed another Adoption Deed No. 5 of 2012 dated 08.02.2012 in favour of son of Madan Mondal i.e. Minor Chandan Mondal, Defendant No. 4. In the above premises, the plaintiff has sought following reliefs:
(1) A declaration of Adoption Deed No. 5 of 2012 dated 08.02.2012 of Jamtara Sub Registry Office as void, illegal and in-operative and is liable to be cancelled.
(2) Cancellation of Registered Deed of Adoption No. 5 of 2012, dated 08.02.2012.
(3) Cost of the suit
(4) Any other relief, these plaintiffs may be found entitled to in law and equity.
3. In their written statement defendants nos. 1 and 2, namely Sashibala @ Sashi Mondalain and Madan Mondal have categorically denied to surrender the land in favour of plaintiff and his brothers and they executed no document in their favour. Defendant no. 1 has never adopted any son, namely, Amit Kumar Mandal nor executed any deed of adoption. The defendant no. 1, Shashi Bala being issueless widow lady has voluntarily adopted son of Madan Mondal, namely, Minor Chandan Mondal in compliance of legal formalities thro
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for laying a foundation for accepting secondary evidence of private documents, including certified copies of registered adoption de....
Certified copies of registered deeds are admissible in evidence under the Indian Evidence Act and should be tentatively marked as exhibits without requiring the registering authority's presence for p....
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.
The admissibility of certified copies of public documents does not equate to proof of the truth of their contents; such truth must be established through oral evidence.
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 ....
The court ruled that while a certified copy of a sale deed is admissible as secondary evidence, it does not suffice to prove the execution of the deed, which must demonstrate intention and legal vali....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
