Documents obtained under RTI are not public documents under the Indian Evidence Act and require compliance with secondary evidence provisions for admissibility.

ORDER:

The present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the plaintiff against the docket order dated 19.12.2023 in O.S.No.401 of 2022 (Old O.S.No.294 of 2008) on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Medchal Malkajgiri District at Malkajgiri (for short ‘the trial Court’).

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court.

3. The facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed the suit against the defendants for perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property i.e., plot bearing No.57 admeasuring 332 square yards, Survey No.101 situated at Medipally village, Hyathnagar Taluq (presently, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District). The plaintiff claims to be the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property having acquired the same by way of registered sale deed document bearing No.1327 of 1983 dated 01.03.1983. It is stated that on 01.02.2008 and 13.02.2008, the defendants, along with their henchmen, besides entering the suit schedule property, also tried to interfere with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed a suit. Pendent lite, the plaintiff tendered the evidence through PW.1 i.e., to mark the file proceedings No.A5/24/2-18 dated 12.02.2019 which was obtained under RTI Act.

4. By the impugned order, the trial Court rejected to mark the certified copy of file proceedings No.A5/24/2018 dated 12.02.2019 which was obtained under RTI Act. In this regard, it is relevant to extract the relevant findings of the trial Court, which reads thus:-

“g) The file proceedings No.A5/24/2018 dated 12.02.2109 is a Memo issued by Regisional Deputy Director, Survey and Land Records, Hyderabad addressed Sri Prem K.Aman and Sri Seethram Reddy. This communication was in response to Sri Prem Kumar Aman request for correction of Tippan and other records of Survey No.102 situated at Medipally Village and Mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri District. This document does not satisfy the test of public document under Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as it is a communication between a public official and a private person and is not available for the purpose of public reference and use. It cannot be said that Public are interested in document (file proceedings No.A5/24/2018 dated 12.02.2019) and are entitled to check the mistakes or errors in documents and if there are any errors or wrongs in it they are entitle to protest. It cannot be said that the public has right to inspect file proceedings No.A5/24/2018 dated 12.02.2019 and can obtain certified copy of the same by paying prescribed fee.

h) Therefore, copy of file proceedings No.A5/24/2018 dated 12.02.2019 obtained by plaintiff under RTI does not fall within scope and ambit of Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as a consequence such document need to be held as private document falling under scope of Section 75 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 .”

(verbatim reproduced)

5. Heard Sri R.Bala Subramanyam, learned counsel for the revision petitioner. Though notice was served, none appeared on behalf of the respondents. Perused the material available on record.

6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that though the document obtained under RTI Act is a public document, the trial Court has erroneously rejected to mark the same. He further contended that the document obtained under RTI i.e., file proceedings No.A5/24/2018 dated 12.02.2019 is to be marked for the purpose of better adjudication of the litigation. In this regard, he placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Katike Bheem Shankar v. T.Laxmi alias Punyavathi and others, 2023(3) ALD 614 (TS) and prayed the Court to allow the revision petition.

7. For better appreciation of the facts of the case, it is apposite to reproduce the Sections 65 , 74 and 75 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 , which reads as under:

“65. Cases in which secondary evidence relating to docu