Court cannot refuse to admit relevant and admissible evidence on ground that it was unlawfully obtained.

1. Plaintiffs in O.S.No. 138 of 1996 on the file of Subordinate Judges Court at Virudhunagar are revision petitioners.

2. They filed a suit to declare the first plaintiff as "Ambalam" of Mela Aviyoor Village and is entitled to all the temple Honours in all the temples of Aviyoor Village and consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men and agents from in any way interfering with the plaintiffs right to get "honour" as "Ambalam" and for consequential reliefs.

3. The claim of the plaintiffs was seriously disputed by the defendants.

4. For the purpose of proving their case, they wanted to rely on certain public documents. The genuineness was not disputed. Those public documents were in the possession of first plaintiff and he wanted those documents to be received in evidence. The details of the documents are 1) Aviyoor Village A Register — Pages 29, 43, 44, 48, and 50 then, 2) Field Measurement Book -13) Village Plan - 1. In the affidavit in support of the application, he stated that those documents were handed over to him by the Go vernment while he was a Village Officer. Even though he has retired and handed over charge of the office, the Government did not receive those documents and he continue to retain the same. According to him, those documents will prove that there are two burial grounds, two irrigation tanks for Keela Aviyur and Mela Aviyoor villages. It is stated that being a public documents they could be produced in evidence and to prove its contention, no further evidence is necessary.

5. A counter statement was filed by the respondents objecting the admissibility of those documents on the ground that the petitioner who ought to have returned those documents to Government and having not returned them, it cannot be said that he is in proper custody of those documents. According to the respondents, only a public officer can have the custody of public document and only on the basis of certified copies furnishes by the public officer, the document could be proved. Since the documents are in the illegal custody, they are inadmissible in evidence.

6. The lower court accepted the objection raised by the respondents and dismissed I.A.No. 400 of 1998. The legality of the order is challenged in this revision.

7. I heard both the counsel.

8. The only question that requires consideration is, whether the impugned order is liable to be revised under section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure. The fact that the documents produced are vitally important for the disposal of the suit is not disputed by either parties. The documents will have a great bearing with the case is also not disputed.

9. The Lower Court has dismissed the application on the ground that the petitioner cannot have the custody of those documents and therefore they are inadmissible in evidence. It has further held that under section 74, 76 and 77 of the Evidence Act, a public officer alone can have custody and a certified copy issued by such public officer alone could be admitted in evidence.

10. The question to be considered is, whether this reasoning of the trial court is correct.

11. It is the case of the petitioner that he came into custody of those documents while he was a village officer and the Government entrusted the documents to him. He has not returned the same though he ceased to be in service. That means, he continues to have the custody of those documents unauthorisedly. The question to be considered in, whether that can be a reason to hold that those documents are inadmissible in evidence if even it is found that they are relevant for deciding the case. In Magraj Patodia v. R.K. Birla and others, 1970 (2) S.C.C. 888 it is a case under the representation of the People Act, a similar question came for consideration. At page 897 of the reports, their Lordships have held thus:

"But the fact that a document was procured by improper or even illegal means will not be a bar to its admissibility if