Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 15963

GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Kalyan Rai Surana, J
Akbar Ali – Appellant
Versus
Abdul Majid – Respondent
RSA/92/2010

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: N. Haque, S. K. Deori, B. Ahmed, K. Uddin
For the Respondents: D. Konwar, R. Lagachu, R. Goswami, H. Kalita

A certified copy of a sale deed is not sufficient secondary evidence to prove title where the execution of the original document is specifically disputed and there are material discrepancies between pleadings and evidence, necessitating compliance with Section 65 of the Evidence Act.

Headnote:(A) Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 65, 74 - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order XVIII Rule 4 - Order XLI Rule 27 - Admissibility of secondary evidence - Variance between pleadings and evidence - Certified copy of sale deed - Where there is a specific denial of execution of sale deed by the vendor, mere production of a certified copy of the sale deed is insufficient; the original document or proof of execution is required - Appellate courts should not permit additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 where sufficient evidence was available for the trial and first appellate courts to pass a satisfactory judgment.

Facts of the case:
The appellant (plaintiff) filed a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession based on a registered sale deed. The defendant challenged the deed as forged and denied its execution. There were significant discrepancies in the sale deed numbers cited in the plaint versus the evidence provided by the witnesses. The trial court and first appellate court dismissed the suit due to the appellant's failure to produce the original sale deed or prove its execution.

Findings of Court:
The High Court held that while a certified copy of a sale deed is a public document under Section 74(2) of the Evidence Act, the certified copy is not admissible to prove contents when the execution is specifically denied by the vendor, without satisfying requirements of Section 65. Given the contradictions in the pleadings and evidence, and the failure of the appellant to take steps to produce the original in lower courts, the application for additional evidence was rejected.

Issues: Whether a certified copy of a sale deed is admissible as secondary evidence despite discrepancies in pleadings and denial of execution by the vendor.

Ratio Decidendi: A certified copy of a sale deed, while a public document, does not dispense with the necessity of proving execution when the vendor disputes it and there are material inconsistencies in the appellant's own pleadings and evidence.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. overview of trial court findings regarding property title disputes. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
2. admissibility of secondary evidence (certified copy) versus proof of execution. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
3. strict conditions for admitting additional evidence under order 41 rule 27 cpc. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
4. final ruling on the substantial question of law and dismissal of appeal. (Para 25 , 26 , 27)

ORDER

Heard Mr. N. Haque, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. By filing this appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, the appellant has assailed the judgment and order dated 18.05.2009, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Barpeta in Title Appeal No. 12 of 2008, and the consequential decree by which the said appeal was dismissed, and the judgment and decree dated 24.03.2008 passed by the learned Munsiff, Bajali at Pathshala in T.S. No. 1 of 2007 was affirmed.

3. In brief, the case of the appellant is that he had filed a suit against the respondents for a declaration of right, title, and interest, and for recovery of khas possession by evicting the respondent-defendants from the suit land described in Schedule B (out of the land described in Schedule A of the plaint), for the removal of the house described in Schedule C of the plaint, and for a permanent injunction. The said suit was registered as Title Suit No. 1 of 2007. It is stated that in the plaint, apart from the 8 respondents as defendants, there are two proforma defendants. Defendant Nos. 1, 2, and 3 contested the suit by filing their written statement, denying the execution of the sale deed, asserting their possession of the suit land, and claiming the sale deed to be forged.

4. In the course of the trial, the learned trial Court framed nine issues, which are as follows:

1. Whether plaintiff has right, title and interest over suit land?

2. Whether plaintiff purchased “Schedule A” land vide registered Sale Deed No. 2659/05?

3. Whether registered sale deed No. 2659/05 is a forged one?

4. Whether the defendants dispossessed the plaintiff from the suit land on 25-1-07 thereby erecting thatched house and planting trees?

5. Whether there is cause of action for the suit?

6. Whether suit is valued properly and proper court fee paid thereof?

7. Whether suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties?

8. Whether suit is barred by law of limitation?

9. To what relief/reliefs parties are entitled to?

5. In support of the plaint, the petitioner examined four witnesses and exhibited five documents, being a certified copy of the registered sale deed No. 2689/05 (Ext.1), original land revenue payment receipts for the years 2000-2001, 2004-2005, and 2005-2006 (Ext. Nos. 2, 3, and 4), and a certified copy of the Jamabandi (Ext. 5).

6. The contesting respondents had also examined four witnesses and had exhibited a certified copy of the Jamabandi (Ext. Ka), a certified copy of the Chitha (Ext. Kha), and the original registered sale deed No. 3087/75 dated 25.11.1975 (Ext. Ga).

7. In respect of issue No. 2, the learned trial Court, on the basis of evidence on record, recorded a finding that in the pleadings, the number of the certified copy of the sale deed is 2689/05. As per the pleadings in the first paragraph, it is claimed that the scheduled suit land was bought from the proforma defendant, Mokshed Ali, by registered sale deed No. 2659/05. In the evidence-on-affidavit of PW-1, the petitioner stated the number of the registered sale deed as 2659/05, whereas PW-3 referred to the said registered sale deed number as 2359/05. As per the evidence of Abed Ali (PW-4), the original sale deed was with the office of the Sub-Registrar, Barpeta. However, the vendor Mokshed Ali, proforma defendant No. 2 examined as DW-3, denied having sold any land to the appellant and according to him, he was the owner of only 2 katha 10 lessas of land in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 15963

GAUHATI HIGH COURTKalyan Rai Surana, JAkbar Ali – AppellantVersusAbdul Majid – RespondentRSA/92/2010

A certified copy of a sale deed is not sufficient secondary evidence to prove title where the execution of the original document is specifically disputed and there are material discrepancies between pleadings and evidence, necessitating compliance with Section 65 of the Evidence Act.

Cases Referred (3)

GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Kalyan Rai Surana, J
Akbar Ali – Appellant
Versus
Abdul Majid – Respondent
RSA/92/2010