Mr. K. Kannan, J. (Oral): - The appeal is by the plaintiff on the concurrent finding of the Courts below dismissing the plaintiff’s action which was originally filed for injunction but later modified for the relief of recovery of possession. The plaintiff claimed right to the property as a purchaser through a registered document dated 02.02.1978 executed by one Subhash whose power of attorney was Paras Ram. Originally the relief of injunction was sought against defendant, who claimed under a rival sale executed on 10.02.1978 through power of attorney Ram Kumar. While the deed of power of attorney relied on by the plaintiff was a registered instrument, the power of attorney in favour of Ram Kumar, who had executed the document was purported to have been executed on 01.02.1978 and notarized on 06.02.1978.

2. At the trial Court, the plaintiff had filed the power of attorney as well as the sale deed and sought for the relief of recovery of possession saying that he had been wrongly dispossessed and the defendant, who claimed to be a purchaser through a transaction that was subsequent to the plaintiff’s sale deed had no right to be in possession of the property. The defence, inter alia, was that the sale in favour of plaintiff was itself not competently executed by the person to vest any right in the property. According to the defendant, the power of attorney in favour of Paras Ram contained no power to sell and the sale executed in his favour was itself invalid for the plaintiff to claim the right of recovery of possession. At the trial of the suit, the plaintiff also filed registration copy of the power of attorney to contend that some of the important lines in the power of attorney had been omitted in the original and he wanted to rely on the registration copy of the power of attorney to contend that the power of attorney had a competency to sell the property and act on behalf of the principal. The document was discarded by the trial Court which found that there was no justification for reception of secondary evidence and proceeded to dismiss the suit.

3. In an appeal the plaintiff filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 to found a justification for reception of the registered copy which was omitted to be exhibited in evidence by the trial Court. The Appellate Court did not see the relevance of the registered copy but proceeded to dismiss the application on a more general ground that reception of additional evidence at the Appellate Court could not be a matter of course and there was no justification for not failing to secure the admission of the document in evidence before the lower Court.

4. The plaintiff is aggrieved by the judgment of the Appellate Court which confirmed the trial Court’s judgments and would urge the points that give rise to the following substantial questions of laws :-

i) Whether the lower Appellate Court was justified in rejecting the certified copy of the power of attorney without going into the issue of the relevance of the same and the need for it to be taken on record in the light of the contention that the original power of attorney had contained some serious omissions which were required to be explained through the registration copy?

ii) Whether the certified copy of the document, which was registered, was itself not a public document and per se admissible without any further proof?

iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of recovery of possession on the basis of the sale deed which must be taken as having been executed by a person competent to execute a sale deed under the general power of attorney, where the power of manage which must be taken as empowering him to sell the property on behalf of the principal?

5. There can be no doubt about the fact that the registration copy of a sale deed is admissible, if it is duly authenticated and could be acted upon under Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act. While Section 74 lends authenticity to a document which is duly certifi