LAWS(HPH)-2019-4-197

VIJAY RAM Vs. SUKH RAM

Decided On April 30, 2019
VIJAY RAM Appellant
V/S
SUKH RAM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition is directed, against, the dis-affirmative orders pronounced by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bilaspur, H.P. ,upon, an application, cast under the provisions of 65, of, the Indian Evidence Act, where through the aggrieved plaintiff hence sought leave to adduce secondary evidence, vis- -vis, the sale deed, of, 3/11/1976, executed by one Reshmu Devi. A perusal of the plaint, unfolds qua a vivid disclosure, standing borne therein, vis- -vis, the plaintiff seeking rendition, of, a declaratory decree, vis- -vis, his being owner in possession of the suit land, and, the anvil of the afore espousal, stands rather rested, upon, the afore-referred sale deed. However, it is averred in the plaint, and, in the instant application, qua the original thereof, being purveyed to the Halqa Patwari concerned, in contemporaneity, vis- -vis, the making, of, an attestation of mutation, (i) and with the plaintiff, in contemporaniety thereof, being a minor, hence his being disabled, to retrieve it, from, the Halqua Patwari concerned. Consequently, the certified copy/attested copy of the aforesaid sale deed, hence, was strived, to, fall within the ambit of clauses (e) and (f) of Sec. 65 of the of the Indian Evidence Act, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter:

(2.) As a sequel, it is to be determined, whether, an attested copy of the afore sale deed, does fall, within the domain of Sec. 76, of, the Indian Evidence Act, (i) and importantly, only, upon with the hereat, rather attested copy of the afore sale deed, rather satiating all the apposite therewith ingredients borne, in Sec. 76 of the Indian Evidence Act, thereupon it would be rendered construable to thereafter, fall, within the domain of Sec. 77, of, the Indian Evidence Act. (ii) However, Sec. 77 of the Indian Evidence Act, makes vivid echoings, vis- -vis, the apt certified copy, enjoining satiation, vis- -vis, all the ingredients borne therein, for thereupon a purported certified copy, being so construable (iii) in as much as, a certified copy, rather carrying thereon, the requisite certification, (iv) and, the, aforestated certificate being enjoined to be also carrying, hence the date, title and the seal of the certifying officer, and, obviously his signatures being also enjoined, to, occur thereon, (v) bearing in mind the afore postulation(s), borne in Sec. 76, of, the Indian Evidence Act, wherewith hence, satiation is enjoined to be begotton , vis- -vis, the hereat rather attested copy of the afore sale deed, (vi) obviously enjoins an allusion being made thereto, and, allusion thereto hence unveils qua their occurring thereon, a seal of the officer concerned, exemplifying, qua it being an attested true copy, of the original, and, also his dated signatures are borne thereon. The afore mark(s) of attestation made thereon, besides the seal of the officer attesting it, along with his signatures, rather hence being embossed thereon, prima facie, does satiate the afore imperative ingredients, borne in Sec. 77 of the Indian Evidence Act (vii), dehors the mere attestation thereof, without any certification in concurrence with the afore postulations, though, rather stricto sensu, within, the afore postulation, borne in Sec. 75 of the Indian Evidence Act, rather renders it to not fall within the domain(s) thereof. However, even if, the afore manner of attestation, of the, apt copy derived, from, the requisite originals, is, though stricto sensu, not within, the, domain of the afore postulations, embodied in Sec. 76 of the Indian Evidence Act, (viii) nonetheless when, upon perusing the reverse, of the afore attested copy, of the sale deed, it emanates qua it being registered, on 5/11/1976, with, the Sub-Registrar concerned, (vi) thereupon, it is to be concluded qua it emanating, from, the records of the Sub-Registrar concerned, and, it, prima facie, bearing consonance therewith. Further sequel thereof is that, with clause (e) mandating qua, it being permissible, to grant leave to adduce, rather hence secondary evidence, vis-a-vis, the originals, of, a "public document", and, when the registered deed of conveyance, though, is a private document, yet, with its visibly falling, within, the mandate of sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 74, of, the Indian Evidence Act, (vii) thereupon, the afore attested copy of the afore sale deed, was receivable, in evidence, (viii) and, furthermore, when the mandate of clause (f) of Sec. 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, is also attracted hereat, and, when upon conjunctive readings of clause(s) (e) and (f) of Secs. 65 and 77, of, the Indian Evidence Act, an inevitable conclusion, rather ensues qua the afore attested copy of the apposite sale deed, being both permissibly readable, as secondary evidence, vis- -vis, originals, thereof, besides, upon its tendering, it proving the originals thereof, thereupon it was befitting to allow the application, rather declining the apt relief. Preeminently, also when the afore marks of attestation, made on the afore copy, though, do not beget the strictest compliance, vis- -vis, the afore postulations, borne in Sec. 77 of the Indian Evidence Act, rather when they do beget substantial compliance therewith, hence, when upon making the strictest insistence(s), vis- -vis, strictest compliance being meted thereto, would rather beget injustice, and, further when the afore presumption, is rebuttable, (ix) thereupon strictest compliance therewith, is, untenable.

(3.) The learned Civil Judge, in declining the relief, has misconstrued the import of the afore referred provisions, and, has apparently committed a gross illegality and impropriety.