The admissibility of secondary evidence requires foundational proof; mere submissions do not suffice.

1. This second appeal preferred by the appellant / plaintiff was admitted for hearing by formulating the following substantial question of law:
"Whether both the Courts below were justified in holding that plaintiff has no title over the suit land by ignoring the fact that he has purchased the suit land from Motilal Jain by registered sale deed dated 30/10/1979 (Ex.P1c)?"
(For the sake of convenience, parties hereinafter will be referred as per their status shown and ranking given in the suit before the trial Court.)

2. The plaintiff and the defendants are brothers and sister. The plaintiff brother filed suit against his two brothers and one sister stating inter alia that he purchased the suit house by registered sale deed 30-10-1979 (Ex.P1C) from one Motilal Jain and became title holder and as such, it is the self - acquired property in which the defendants are licensees and despite request, they have not vacated the suit house and therefore he is entitled for decree of declaration of title and recovery of possession along damages which was opposed by the defendants by filing written statement stating that Motilal Jain had no right and title to sell the property in fact, Motilal Jain was money lender involved in the business of money lending and it was a money transaction for which the sale deed was executed and thereafter the entire amount was paid by the father of the parties through the plaintiff, but the plaintiff fraudulently got his name registered in the sale deed, as such, it is the joint family property of the parties and the plaintiff is not entitled for decree.

3. The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, dismissed the suit finding that it is not the self - acquired property of the plaintiff, but it is the ancestral property of the parties which the first appellate Court has also agreed and dismissed the appeal. Questioning that judgment and decree, this second appeal has been preferred in which substantial question of law has been framed which has been set - out in the opening paragraph of this judgment.

4. Mr. H.B. Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant herein / plaintiff, would submit that Ex.P1C confers exclusive title to the plaintiff, as he has purchased the suit property form Motilal Jain and even if the original sale deed has not been filed, he is entitled to decree on the basis of certified copy of sale deed. He placed reliance upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the matters of Kalyan Singh, London Trained Cutter, Johri Bazar, Jaipur v. Smt. Chhoti and others (1990) 1 SCC 266 : (AIR 1990 SC 396) and Haji Mohammad Ekramul Haq v. The State of West Bengal, AIR 1959 SC 488 and also on the decision of the Bombay High Court in the matter of Baban Girju Bangar v. Namdeo Girju Bangar and others, AIR 1999 BOMBAY 46 to buttress his submission.

5. Mr. R.K. Pali, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 3, would support the submissions of Mr. H.B. Agrawal and would adopt his submissions.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their submissions made hereinabove and went through the record with utmost circumspection.

7. It is the plaintiff's case that he has purchased the suit property by registered sale deed Ex.P1C from Motilal Jain and became title holder, thus, it is the self - acquired property. Whereas, it is the defendants'' case that it is the joint family property and the suit land was mortgaged in favour of Motilal Jain and while returning back, by registered sale deed, the plaintiff got his name registered in the registered sale deed. In order to prove hi