Admissibility of certified copies of Roznamcha Waqiati as public documents and the requirements for bonafide purchaser status under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

JUDGMENT

Anil Kshetarpal, J. - The Regular Second Appeal in the States of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory, Chandigarh are governed by Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 and not by Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as held by a five Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Pankajakshi (Dead) through LRs vs. Chandrika and others, (2016) 6 SCC 157.

2. By this judgment two connected Regular Second Appeals i.e RSA-2577 of 2015 and RSA-6118 of 2017 shall stand disposed of.

3. Both the appeals have been filed separately by defendant No. 9-10 and 11-12 in a suit filed for grant of decree of declaration, with a consequential relief of permanent injunction and in the alternative for grant of a decree for possession. The learned counsel representing the parties are ad idem that both these appeals can be conveniently disposed of by a common order.

4. In the opinion of this Court, the following question arises for adjudication:-

'Whether a certified copy of Roznamcha Waqiati (diary) maintained by the village Patwari in discharge of his official duties, being a public document, is admissible in admission, in accordance with Section 74 read with Section 77 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872?"

5. The defendants assail the correctness of the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the courts below. Sh. Om Parkash son of Sh.Ram Nath @ Babu Ram filed the suit claiming that he was owner in possession of the land measuring 120 kanals and 12 marlas approximately being 1/6th share of the land measuring 723 kanals and 14 as per the Jamabandi for the year 1960-61. The suit land was situated in village Una, District Hoshiarpur but later on due to re-adjustment in the district boundaries, it fell within the area of Tehsil Anandpur Sahib, District Ropar. On account of a decree for recovery of amount of Rs. 2721.44 in favour of Lala Vyas Ram and against Om Parkash, the land measuring 60 kanals and 6 marlas being 1/12th share of the land measuring 723 kanals and 14 marlas belonging to Om Parkash was attached by the warrants of attachment entered by the Patwari in its Roznamcha Waqiati No. 56 dated 3rdOctober, 1960. The aforesaid land was sold in a court auction in favour of one Durga Das and the warrants of possession issued by the Civil Court were entered by the Patwari in Roznamcha Waqiati No. 341 on 28th April, 1966 the evidencing the delivery of possession of the land measuring 60 kanals and 6 marlas. Thereafter, the mutation No. 713 with respect to land measuring 60 kanals and 6 marlas was entered by the Patwari in its record on 28th April, 1966 but it was sanctioned after nearly 3 years on 27th September, 1969 by wrongly reflecting that land measuring 70 kanals and 60 marlas have been sold in a public auction. Thereafter, in the Jamabandi for year 1970-71 the name of the plaintiff (Om Prakash) was wrongly deleted from the revenue record though he continued to remain owner of the remaining piece of land. The entry was wrongly recorded in favour of Radha Krishan son of Runila, Nathu son of Bholu, Hirda and Hansraj sons of Devi Sharan. These persons sold the property by executing various sale deeds though they had no right, title or interest vested in the said property. The revenue authorities in collusion with the various defendants, took benefit of the absence of the plaintiff, who is a resident of state of Gujarat. They started threatening to dispossess the plaintiff resulting in filing of the suit. Defendant No. 7,9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 23, 37, 38, 46 and 41 contested the suit. In substance, they claim to be the bonafide purchasers of the property for the valuable sale consideration. It was claimed that in fact Roznamcha Waqiati No. 56 and 341 entered by the Patwari are factually incorrect.

6. The plaintiff filed replications to the various written statements filed by the defendants. The court culled out the following issues:-

1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration as prayed for? OPP

(2) Whether the sale deed and subsequent rev