IMPORTANT POINTS
1. Merely on execution of power of attorney to execute Deed of Gift in future, Gift is not complete.
2. Power of attorney is revocable or terminable at any time unless it is made irrevocable in a manner known to law.

R.D. Dhanuka, J.—The matter was on board today for speaking to the minutes of the oral judgment dated 8th January, 2019 when both the parties pointed out few corrections in the said oral judgment. After carrying out those corrections in the oral judgment dated 8th January, 2019, the said oral judgment reads thus:

2. The suit is placed on board for considering the admissibility of the documents referred to and relied upon by the defendant nos.3 and 4 in the compilation of documents. The defendant no.3 has filed affidavit in lieu of examination in chief dated 4th August, 2018. The plaintiff has filed a statement of admission and denial in respect of the documents forming part of the compilation of documents filed by the defendant nos.3 and 4.

3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff and the defendant nos.3 and 4 and have perused the affidavit in lieu of examination in chief filed by the defendant no.3, statement of admission and denial on behalf of the plaintiff, some of the prayers in the plaint in Suit No.3165 of 2010. The defendant nos.3 and 4 have relied upon 28 documents in the said compilation of documents. The documents are marked as under:

4. Insofar as the documents at serial nos.1 to 3 are concerned, those documents are the original extract of village form no.8-A, of the original form no.2 and the original extract of village form no.6 respectively. The existence and the contents of these documents are disputed by the plaintiff on the ground that those alleged public documents are not proved in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act.

5. Mr.Rajesh Shah, learned counsel appearing for the defendant nos.3 and 4 submits that all these three documents are public documents and are duly certified by the Talathi of the Grampanchayat and thus proved section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and are required to be marked as exhibits. On the other hand, Mr.Jagtiani, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff invited my attention to those three documents at serial nos.1 to 3 of the compilation of original documents and would submit that none of these documents are certified copies of the public documents. No legal fees together with a certificate written on the foot of such copy that it is true copy of the said document or part thereof is made on those three documents. There is no date mentioned on those three documents with the name, official title and seal of the officer authorized by law to make use of a seal is affixed on those documents as required under section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

6. A perusal of those three documents clearly indicates that there is no fee appears to have been paid by the defendant nos.3 and 4 while obtaining those documents from the Grampanchayat nor there is any certificate written on the foot of such copy that it is true copy of such documents or part thereof. The said documents are also not dated and subscribed by any officer with his name and office title and seal by an officer who is authorized by law to make use of a seal. In my view, since those documents are not the certified copies of the public documents as contemplated under section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, these documents cannot be marked as exhibits. It is however, made clear that the defendant no.3 would be at liberty to obtain the certified copies of these public documents in accordance with section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and to apply for exhibiting these documents before evidence of the defendant nos.3 and 4 is closed.

7. Insofar as the documents at serial nos. 4, 5 and 6 are concerned, i.e. original power of attorney dated 18th June, 2006, original deed of gift dated 22nd June, 2006 and original Deed of Release dated 22nd June, 2006 are concerned, the plaintiff has denied the existence and the contents thereof and also the admissibility of these three documents. The document at serial no.4 is disputed on the ground that as per section 17 read with secti