The original sale deed must be produced to validate property claims; failure to do so leads to adverse inferences and dismissal of the suit.

JUDGMENT :

ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.

1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 29.09.2018 (decree dated 12.10.2018) passed by learned Principal District Judge, Khunti in Civil Appeal No. 01 of 2018 whereby the appeal has been dismissed. The trial court’s judgment is dated 21.11.2017 (decree dated 01.12.2017) passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division-1^st Khunti, in Original Title Suit No. 05 of 2011 by which the suit has been dismissed.

2. Plaintiffs have lost in both the courts, but a substantial question of law arises for consideration in this case.

3. The learned counsel has submitted that the plaintiffs are claiming the property by virtue of registered sale deed dated 05.02.1986 from the legal heirs of the recorded tenant and at the time of filing of Jamindari returns and assessment of rent in Assessment Case No. 51 of 1955-56 and in form-M, the recorded tenant were found in possession of the property and rent was assessed in their name who continued in possession and sold the property to the plaintiffs and also delivered possession by virtue of registered sale deed dated 05.02.1986.

4. The learned counsel submits that the defendants were claiming the property by virtue of auction sale which had taken place way back in the year 1941 and they are the purchasers of the property by virtue of registered sale deed executed by the auction purchaser of the property. The registered sale deed is dated 14.12.1944.

5. He submits that it is not in dispute that the registered sale deed dated 05.02.1986 of the plaintiffs and the registered sale deed dated 14.12.1944 of the defendants were in relation to the same property.

6. The learned counsel has referred to the findings of the learned 1^st appellate court which is concurrent finding that adverse inference has been drawn against the plaintiffs on account of non-production of the original sale deed as the plaintiffs have produced only the certified copy of registered sale deed dated 05.02.1986.

7. The learned counsel has referred to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 1183 ( Appaiya versus Andimuthu alias Thangapandi and Others ) dated 20^th September, 2023 and has referred to paragraph 30 of the said judgment to submit that as per Section 65(e) of the Evidence Act, when the original of a document is a public document within the meaning of Section 74, secondary evidence relating to original i.e. as to its existence, condition or contents may be given by producing its certified copy. The learned counsel submits that it has been held by referring to Section 77 and 79 of the Evidence Act that Section 77 provides for the production of certified copy of the public document as secondary evidence in proof of contents of its original and as per Section 79 there is presumption as to the genuineness of certified copies and a document of such nature has been held to be admissible in evidence. He submits that the provision of Section 57(5) of the Registration Act has also been taken into consideration wherein it has been provided that certified copy given under Section 57 of the Registration Act shall be admissible for the purpose of proving the contents of its original document. It has also been held that certified copy issued thereunder is not a copy of the original document, but is a copy of the registration entry which itself is a copy of the original and is a public document under Section 74(2) of the Evidence Act and sub section (5) of section 57 makes it admissible in evidence for proving the contents of its original.

8. The learned counsel submits that non-production of or