R. V. RAVEENDRAN. C. J.

( 1 ) THE Respondent herein filed a suit for ejectment (Civil Suit No. 423-A/2002 on the file of 3rd civil Judge, Class-II, Jabalpur transferred and renumbered as C. S. No. 20-A/2004 on the file of 13th Civil Judge, Class-II, jabalpur) against the petitioners herein under the provisions of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act. In the said suit, the Respondent filed an application under Section 65 of the Evidence Act, 1872 ('act' for short)seeking permission to lead secondary evidence in regard to the sale-deed dated 5-11-1997 executed in her favour by the previous owners (Ramdas and others) by producing a certified copy of the deed.

( 2 ) THE Respondent claims that the original sale-deed is filed in F. A. No. 337/2003 pending on the file of this Court. It is also alleged that the execution of the said sale-deed by Ramdas and others in her favour was not disputed by the petitioners herein (tenants), but specifically admitted in the earlier suit filed by them (C. S. No. 104-A/ 2002 ). The said suit was filed by the petitioners herein for specific performance of an alleged agreement of sale dated 2-5-1996 executed by the previous owner Ramdas in favour of Vijay Singh Rana (of whom they are the legal heirs) and for a declaration that the said sale deed executed by Ramdas and others in favour of the respondent herein was void. The said civil suit was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 7-8-2003, which is challenged by petitioners herein in f. A. No. 337/2003.

( 3 ) THE petitioners herein opposed the said application. They submitted that the respondent herein ought to have taken steps to summon the original sale-deed instead of trying to produce a certified copy as secondary evidence.

( 4 ) THE trial Court, by order dated 22/2/ 2005, allowed the said application on two grounds. The first ground is that as the original sale deed had been produced on the file of F. A. No. 337/2003, it will be time consuming to summon the said deed. The second ground is that the sale deed being a public document, certified copy thereof was admissible in evidence. The said order of the trial Court is challenged in this petition.

( 5 ) BEFORE the learned Single Judge, the petitioners herein relied on three decisions of learned Single Judges of this Court, jagannath Pershad Nigam v. Visheshwar prasad (1977 (1) MPWN Item 210), Bhagwat saran v. Man Singh (1986 (1) MPWN Item 59) and Gopal Sharma v. Savitri Devi Ojha (1994 (1) MPWN Item 192) in support of their contention that a sale deed is not a public document and when the original is not lost or destroyed, it cannot be proved by merely tendering certified copy thereof. On the other hand, the Respondent-landlord relied on the decision of a learned Single Judge of this court in Nawab Saheb v. Firoz Ahmad (2002 (5) MPLJ 438 (sic) : (2003 AIHC 544), holding that a registered sale deed is a public document, purporting to rely on an earlier decision of another Single Judge in Vasudev v. Tikaram (1994 (1) MPWN Item 198 ). In view of the divergent views, the learned single Judge (K. K. Lahoti, J.) has referred this petition to a Division Bench for decision, stating that the following two questions arise for consideration.

(i) Whether certified copy of a registered sale deed obtained from the office of Sub-Registrar is a public document ? (ii) Whether the aforesaid document may be received in evidence as a public document without any proof of document by primary evidence, as required under Section 64 of the Evidence Act ?

( 6 ) ON the points urged by both sides and the reference by the learned Single Judge, the following points arise for consideration:

" (i) Whether a sale deed (duly registered)is a public document ? (ii) Whether a certified copy of a sale-deed issued by the Registering Officer is a public document ? (iii) Whether a certified copy of a public document can be received in evidence without any further proof ? (iv) What is the effect and efficacy of producing and marking a cer

Click Here to Read the rest of this document