A certified copy of a registered sale deed is admissible in evidence as secondary evidence under Section 65(c) of the Evidence Act, 1872, when the original is lost or cannot be produced for any reason not arising from the party's own default or neglect.

S. C. MOHAPATRA, J.

( 1 ) DEFENDANT is the appellant against a reversing document (judgment? ).

( 2 ) SUIT is for declaration of Title and delivery of possession of 3 mans 23 gunths 15 biswas 8 gandas of land in Plot Nos. 117, 118, 123, 128 and 129 in Khata No. 82/1 in Mouza Jodapokhari of Rairangpur Subdivision which is in Mayurbhanj district.

( 3 ) CASE of the plaintiff is that suit land belonged to his father. It was in his possession till his death in or about the year 1950. Plaintiff as the only son inherited the same and continued to be in possession. In 1970 plaintiff filed mutation case No. 2236 of 1970 before the Tahasildar, Rairangpur to get all lands of his father including the suit lands mutated in his name. Defendant objected to the mutation of the suit lands on the ground that in the year 1927 father of the plaintiff sold the same to father of the defendant. Defendant also applied for mutation in his name in respect of the suit land. Tahasildar rejected the prayer of the plaintiff for mutation of the suit lands in his name by order dated 14-8-1971 and mutated the same in name of the defendant by order dated 4-2-1972. During pendency of the mutation proceedings defendant sporadically disturbed in the possession of the plaintiff in respect of some of the disputed land. After the mutation in his favour defendant dispossessed the plaintiff from the entire suit land on or about 28-5-1972. Plaintiff claimed that his father never sold the suit lands to the father of the defendant and the alleged sale deed was most probably created by forgery which was never acted upon by the plaintiffs father.

( 4 ) DEFENDANT filed his written statement on 16-8-1976 and along with it filed the certified copy of the registered sale deed dated 26-9-1927 (Ext. D ). His case is that after obtaining permission from the Sub-divisional Officer, Bamanghaty on 23-9-1927 as per the regulations of Mayurbhanj State, plaintiffs father sold the suit lands to defendant's father on 26-9-1927 by executing a sale deed which was registered that day and on the basis of such purchase defendant's father was in possession having title till his death and defendant is possessing the same by inheritance. As regards the original sale deed, he explained in the written statement that during the lifetime of his father, there was a theft in their house and valuables including the sale deed were lost to the family for which the certified copy has been filed.

( 5 ) ON the finding that defendant had long possession on the basis of the sale deed in favour of his father, trial Court dismissed the suit. Plaintiff preferred first appeal. Before the appellate Court the judgment was assailed on the grounds i. e. (i) there is no foundation for leading secondary evidence in respect of the sale deed and (ii) even if the certified copy of the sale deed is admissible the contents thereof have not been proved. Appellate Court held that the suit land admittedly having belonged to father of the plaintiff, it shall be deemed that the title continues unless the defendant is able to prove acquisition of title by the alleged sale. Relying upon the decision reported in (1970) 36 Cut LT 1211, Paramananda Sahu v. Babu Sahu, appellate Court held that secondary evidence of the original sale deed is not admissible since foundation for leading secondary evidence has not been laid. Appellate Court held that the admission of the certified copy of the sale deed as secondary evidence would not be sufficient to prove the contents of the sale deed which are to be proved independently. AIR 1972 SC 608, P. C. Purushothama Reddiar v. S. Perumal, was distinguished on the ground that it was in an election case and for the first time the admissibility of the document was challenged in appeal. In view of the decisions reported in (1966) 32 Cut LT 343, (Kamal Lochan Pujhari v. Mitrabhanu Biswal) and in (1970) 36 Cut LT 1211 (supra), the decision reported in AIR 1979 Gau 14 Md. Saimuddin v. Abejuddin was