Back
A.K.RATH
Ghana Katali – Appellant
Versus
Lachu Poroja – Respondent
What is the admissibility of secondary evidence under Section 65 of the Evidence Act and the requirement to establish non-production of primary evidence? What is the effect of admitting a document in evidence without objection on later objections to its admissibility on appeal? What are the issues regarding validity of the sale deed, admissibility of secondary evidence, and possession of the suit land?
Key Points: - (!) The case discusses admissibility of secondary evidence under Sec. 65 of the Evidence Act and the need to establish non-production of primary evidence. - (!) It emphasizes the principle that once a document is admitted in evidence without objection, the party is precluded from objecting to its admissibility in appeal. - (!) The suit concerns validity of a sale deed, possession of the suit land, and whether the sale deed was supported by consideration. - (!) The trial court held lack of consideration and non-delivery of possession; the appellate court reversed, upholding consideration and allowing secondary evidence. - (!) The decision discusses the foundation for leading secondary evidence under Sec. 65 and references Rakesh Mohindra v. Anita Beri and others regarding primary vs secondary evidence. - (!) Ext.1 (certified copy of registered sale deed) marked without objection; the court analyzed its admissibility per prior rulings. - (!) The second appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs. (!) The matter involves whether contesting defendants denied specific allegations of payment of consideration and delivery of possession.
JUDGMENT :
A.K. RATH, J.
1. Defendant no.2 is the appellant against a reversing judgment.
2. Plaintiff-respondent no.1 instituted the suit for declaration of title over the suit land and recovery of possession. Case of the plaintiff was that Kamal Lochan Katali and Jagabandhu Katali were brothers. Kamal Lochan died leaving behind three sons Trilochan and defendants 1 and 2. Jagabandhu died leaving behind defendants 3 and 4 as his sons. The suit land fell to the share of defendants 3 and 4 in the family partition. Defendants 1 to 4 sold the suit land to the plaintiff by means of a registered sale deed dated 6.3.1964 for a valid consideration. The plaintiff is in possession of the suit land. Defendants 4 and 5, who are related to defendant no.1, set up defendant no.1, who created disturbance in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff.
3. Defendants 2 to 4 entered contest and filed a written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. According to them, the alleged sale deed was procured by playing fraud and misrepresentation. The defendants were not aware of the contents of the sale deed. Defendant no.2 was a minor at the time of the alleged sale in the year 1964. The suit land
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
