VIJENDRA SINGH Vs. DEENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By filing petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 10.9.12 in Civil Suit No.47-A/11 by Second Civil Judge, Class II, Sabalgarh, Distt. Morena. The plaintiffs filed suit for permanent injunction against defendants. During the pendency of the said suit, they filed an application under Section 65 of the Evidence Act on 31.8.2012. The other side opposed the relief claimed in the said application. In the said application, it is stated that the plaintiffs acquired the possession pursuant to sale-deed dated 1.4.2009.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners by relying on (Chunnilal (since dead) through Lrs Puniya Bai Vs. State of M.P. and others, 2008 2 MPLJ 417), submits that the document can very well be admitted as secondary evidence and Court below has erred in rejecting the same.

(3.) Per contra, Shri D.D.Bansal, learned counsel for the respondents, submits that the aforesaid judgment is no more a good law in view of the subsequent judgment (Natthu Khan v. Komal and others, 2010 2 MPWN 4). He submits that the contention of the petitioners that the sale-deed was not a complete sale, and therefore, the photocopy was permissible in evidence is factually incorrect. By drawing attention of this Court, it is stated that the entire sale consideration was paid and possession was taken, and therefore, sale was totally materialized and it is incorrect submission that sale was not complete. He relied on Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. Shri Bansal also relied on (Avinash Kumar Chauhan Vs. Vijay Krishna Mishra, 2009 1 MPJR 113) and (Tukaram S. Dighole Vs. Manikrao Shivaji Kokate, 2010 4 SCC 329).