Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. LAKSHMAN, J.
Mr. Katike Bheem Shankar – Appellant
Versus
Mrs. T. Laxmi @ Punyavathi & others – Respondents
Civil Revision Petition No.1944 OF 2022
Decided on : 20-12-2022
Right to Information Act, 2005 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 74 – Public documents – Proof of documents by primary evidence – Primary evidence – Proof of contents of documents – Held, Court, information in form of letters and certified copies issued by Public Information officers under RTI Act, 2005 fall within definition of public documents under Section 74 of Act, 1872 – Such documents obtained under RTI Act, 2005 can be proved by placing certified copies on record and said certified copies shall be treated as secondary evidence under Section 65 (e) of Act, 2005 – Under Section 79 of Act, 1872, Courts shall presume genuineness of such certified copies of public documents obtained under RTI Act, 2005, unless such presumption is rebutted by leading evidence – Said aspects were not considered by trial Court in impugned order – Therefore, impugned order passed in I.A. in O.S. by trial Court is set aside and I.A. filed by petitioner - defendant No.1 is allowed receiving documents mentioned therein subject to proof and relevancy – Civil Revision Petition allowed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:
The order in question pertains to a civil revision petition challenging a trial court order that refused to admit certain documents obtained under the RTI Act, 2005, as evidence, on the grounds that they are not certified copies of public documents (!) (!) .
The documents in question include letters and registers related to the sale of non-judicial stamp papers, issued by public officers and maintained in official records (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The court's analysis clarifies that documents obtained under the RTI Act, such as certified copies and information in letter form, can constitute public documents under Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Certified copies issued by a Public Information Officer (PIO) under the RTI Act, are considered secondary evidence and are presumed genuine by the court, unless rebutted by evidence challenging their authenticity (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The court emphasizes that such certified copies obtained under the RTI Act fall within the definition of public documents, provided they are issued by authorized officers and relate to official records maintained in discharge of public duties (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The admissibility of these documents does not require the party to lay a foundation under Sections 65(a), (b), or (c) of the Evidence Act, as is necessary for private documents; for public documents, production of a certified copy suffices (!) (!) .
The court notes that the presumption of genuineness under Section 79 of the Evidence Act is rebuttable, and parties may lead evidence to challenge the authenticity of such documents (!) .
The court recognizes that information in the form of letters issued by public officers under the RTI Act, which are based on official records, also qualify as public documents under the law (!) (!) .
The order concludes that the trial court's refusal to admit these documents was based on a misinterpretation of the law regarding their status as public documents and their admissibility as secondary evidence (!) .
As a result, the civil revision petition is allowed, and the impugned order is set aside, permitting the documents to be received as evidence, subject to proof and relevancy (!) .
These points encapsulate the legal principles and findings from the document, emphasizing the admissibility and classification of documents obtained under the RTI Act as public documents under Indian Evidence Law.
ORDER :
The present Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order dated 26.04.2022 passed in I.A. No.230 of 2019 in O.S. No. 116 of 2017 by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Mahabubnagar (hereinafter referred to as ‘trial Court’), wherein the information obtained by the petitioner herein under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘RTI Act, 2005’) was not admitted as evidence on the ground that the documents obtained under the RTI Act, 2005 are not certified copies of public documents.
2. Heard Mr. R. Dheeraj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N. Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2. It is mentioned in the cause title that respondent Nos.3 to 5 are not necessary parties to the present revision.
3. Facts of the case:
i) Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the original plaintiffs, have filed
O.S. No. 116 of 2017 seeking specific performance of agreement of sale dated 09.02.2015 against the petitioner herein (Defendant No. 1 in the suit). According to respondent Nos.1 and 2, they are the legal heirs of one T. Kishan.
ii) Allegedly, the petitioner herein along with other respondents agreed to sell land admeasuring Acs.55-16 Guntas, situated at Manikonda Village of Kolikonda Mandal, presently merged with Mahabubnagar Mandal (hereinafter referred to as ‘subject property’) for a total sale consideration of Rs.83,10,000/- to the said T. Kishan. The petitioner herein allegedly received Rs.50,00,000/- as part of advance payment from T. Kishan and executed an agreement of sale dated 09.02.2015 in his favour. It is relevant to note that the said agreement of sale was executed on a non-judicial stamp paper bearing No.B 355988. The balance amount of Rs. 33,10,000/- was agreed to be paid on execution of sale deed, demarcation of lands and obtaining pattadar pass books.
iii) According to respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein, T. Kishan was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, but the petitioner herein failed to execute sale deed in respect of the subject property. The said T. Kishan passed away on 09.05.2016 leaving behind respondent Nos.1 and 2. According to respondents Nos.1 and 2, despite continuous requests, the petitioner herein did not execute a sale deed. Therefore, respondent No.1 got issued legal notices dated 17.06.2017 and 23.08.2017 demanding the petitioner herein to execute a sale deed in respect of the subject property. As the petitioner herein along with other defendants failed to execute the sale deed, respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed O.S. No. 116 of 2017 seeking specific performance of agreement of sale dated 09.02.2015.
iv) The Petitioner herein along with other defendants denied the allegations of respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein and contended that they have not executed the agreement of sale dated 09.02.2015 and the said agreement of sale is a forged one. While the said suit was pending, the petitioner herein filed I.A. No.230 of 2019 to receive certain documents obtained by him under the RTI Act, 2005 as evidence on the ground that they are public documents.
v) The following documents were filed by the petitioner herein to be received as evidence:
a) Letter dated 18.04.2018 issued by the Public Information Officer, Stamps and Registration Department, Sangareddy stating that non-judicial stamp paper bearing no. B 355988 was sold to K. Balakrishna (stamp vendor).
b) Non-judicial stamp papers sale register from 02.01.2015 to 31.12.2015 issued by the Joint Sub-Registrar, Sangareddy showing the sale of non-judicial stamp papers by one K. Balakrishna (stamp vendor).
c) Letters dated 14.03.2018 and 21.03.2018 issued by the Public Information Officer, Commissioner and Inspector General of Stamps and Registration, Hyderabad stating that non-judicial stamps of Rs. 100 denomination bearing nos. B 352001 to B 360000 were issued to the District Registrar Office, Sangareddy.
d) Letter dated 14.03.2018 issued by the Public Information Officer, Sub-Registrar
A certified copy of a registered sale deed is classified as a public document and admissible as secondary evidence without formal proof under relevant provisions of the Evidence Act.
The admissibility of certified copies of public documents does not equate to proof of the truth of their contents; such truth must be established through oral evidence.
Documents presented as secondary evidence must satisfy foundational requirements and cannot be admitted without proper explanation for the non-production of originals.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for laying a foundation for accepting secondary evidence of private documents, including certified copies of registered adoption de....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
