The court ruled that while a certified copy of a sale deed is admissible as secondary evidence, it does not suffice to prove the execution of the deed, which must demonstrate intention and legal validity.

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

Arindam Lodh, J. - Heard Mr. B. Banerjee, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Also heard Mr. G.S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. This second appeal has been filed by the appellants against the judgment and order dated 20.09.2022 passed by the learned District Judge, Gomati Judicial District in Title Appeal No. 09 of 2016 arising out of judgment dated 31.03.2016 and decree dated 05.04.2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Gomati, Tripura in TS No.12 of 2012.

3. The plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of right, title, interest and confirmation of possession. In support of their plea of title, the plaintiffs have produced certified copy of the registered sale deed under which they purchased the suit land.

4. Issues were framed after perusal of the pleadings exchanged between the plaintiffs and the defendants. Both the parties adduced evidence.

5. Having heard the arguments of the counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, the learned trial Judge dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs with the following findings:

'ISSUE NO.II: According to the plaintiffs, they, being the legal heirs of Alfat Ali, became the owner-in-possession of the suit lands described in Schedule A(i) and Schedule A(ii) of the plaint. Originally, Alfat Ali jointly owned with Ali Ashrab 0.49 acres of land described in Schedule A(i) and he purchased the portion of land owned by Ali Ashrab from him and also purchased land described in Schedule A(ii) from Ali Ashrab by a common registered deed of sale and got delivery of possession. In support of their claim, plaintiffs adduced in evidence death certificate of Alfat Ali (Ext.1), survival certificate of Alfat Ali (Ext.2), certified copy of registered sale deed vide no. 1-1934 between Alfat Ali and Ali Ashrab (Ext.3 series), certified copy of khatian no.130 and 116 of Mouja Amtali (Ext.4 & 5 respectively), and certified copy of Map of Mouja Amtali (Ext.6). From Ext.2 it is made clear that the plaintiffs are the legal heir of Alfat Ali. But Ext.3 is the certified copy of sale deed. Plaintiffs have not adduced in evidence the original deed of sale and there is no explanation as to why the original sale deed is not produced. It is settled law of evidence as provided in section 64 of the EVIDENCE ACT that document must be proved by primary evidence except in cases mentioned in the said Act. As per section 67 of the EVIDENCE ACT : the signature and handwriting must be proved when a document is produced. Plaintiffs examined the Moharar of Sub-Registrar Khokan Debnath as PW.3 who during his cross-examination admitted that he did not know Asrab Ali or his hand writing or signature and he also could not say whether original Asrab Ali executed the sale deed before the Sub-Registrar. The exception as indicated in section 64 is well found in section 77 of the EVIDENCE ACT which provides that certified copies may be produced in proof of the contents of public documents. But a deed of sale is not a public document. Therefore, the document i.e., the deed of sale is not proved in view of the EVIDENCE ACT . Thus, it is also not proved that Alfat Ali purchased the land described in Schedule A(i) and Schedule A(ii) of the plaint from Ali Ashrab. Moreover, from the plaint it is apparent that land in Schedule A(i) is recorded in Khatian no. 130 (Ext.4) and land in Schedule A(ii) is recorded in Khatian no. 116 (Ext.5). Ext.4 shows that both the Alfat Ali and Ali Ashrab are the owners and possessors of 0.49 acres of land situated in Mouja Amtali and Ext.5 shows that Ali Ashrab is the owner and possessor of 0.38 acres of land under Mouja Amtali. Thus, Ext.4 and