RAM BRIKSHA SINGH Vs. RAMASHRAY SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition has been filed by the defendants/petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dtd. 2/8/2018 passed by the learned Munsif, Begusarai in Title Suit No. 69 of 1996 whereby and whereunder the prayer made by the plaintiffs to accept and mark as an exhibit a certified copy of sale deed was allowed.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts, as it emerges from the record, are that the respondents as plaintiffs filed have Title Suit No. 69 of 1996 before the learned trial court seeking following reliefs:-

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendants/petitioners submitted that the learned trial court was not justified in accepting the sale deed executed by petitioner no.1 in favour of Ajay Kumar Singh treating it to be a public document. Learned counsel further submitted that certified copy of the sale deed could not be said to be a public document. Learned trial court did not consider the fact that the said document has no relevance in deciding the present case and the land mentioned in the certified copy of sale deed is different from the plots mentioned in the plaint as suit property. Learned counsel further submitted that the certified copy of the sale deed is not a primary evidence and would fall under the category of secondary evidence as provided under Sec. 63 of the Indian Evidence Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Evidence Act'). The plaintiffs/respondents failed to satisfy the conditions as laid down under Sec. 65 of the Evidence Act in order to give the secondary evidence as Sec. 64 of the Evidence Act provides that the documents must be proved by primary evidence. Only exceptions are the conditions mentioned under Sec. 65 of the Evidence Act. Learned counsel further submitted that learned trial court committed further error when without considering the relevance of the said document, it illegally admitted the said document as public document without requiring its formal proof. Thus, the learned counsel submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable and the same is fit to be set aside.