Summary
The Supreme Court restored concurrent decrees declaring the plaintiff’s title to the entire 2 acres and 61 cents and protecting possession. A duly certified registration copy was admissible to prove the sale deed’s contents; execution was undisputed, so reliance on presumptions about ancient documents was unnecessary. The High Court misread the deeds and wrongly reduced the extent to 96 cents. No exceptional ground justified reversing the supported concurrent findings in second appeal.
Issues
- Whether the certified registration copy could prove the sale deed’s contents without production of the original or an independent witness.
- Whether the High Court properly restricted the plaintiff’s title and reversed concurrent findings in second appeal.
Provisions considered
- Sections 61, 63, 65(e), 74(2), 76, 77 and 79, Indian Evidence Act, 1872The public registration record and its duly certified copy permitted proof of the original deed’s contents. Certification was not challenged and execution was undisputed; the High Court wrongly rejected this mode of proof. (¶¶ 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30)
- Section 57(5), Registration Act, 1908Copies signed and sealed by the registering officer are admissible to prove the original document’s contents; this provision supported use of the certified registration copy alongside the Evidence Act. (¶¶ 23, 24, 29)
- Section 100, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Concurrent factual findings may be disturbed on properly framed substantial questions where recognised defects exist, but the supported findings here supplied no such justification. (¶¶ 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 32, 33)
Held
- Concurrent findings are not absolutely immune in second appeal: perversity, reliance on inadmissible evidence, material evidentiary omissions or misinterpretation of documents can justify interference on a substantial question of law. That exception did not validate the High Court’s treatment of this record. (¶¶ 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 33)
- The certified registration copy was legally admissible to prove the original sale deed’s contents. With execution undisputed and the applicable certification provisions satisfied, neither production of the original nor an independent witness was necessary on the objection raised here. Resort to Sections 90 and 110 was unnecessary. (¶¶ 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30)
- Both deeds described the same 2 acres and 61 cents within stated boundaries. The additional recital concerning a share in the well did not reduce the land conveyed to 96 cents. The High Court’s partial recognition of title under the deeds was inconsistent with its objections to their evidentiary use. (¶¶ 30, 31, 32)
- The plaintiff discharged his burden through the proved chain of title, shifting the onus to the defendants. The courts below had supplied sound reasons for rejecting their evidence, and no proven better title justified reversal of the decrees declaring title and granting consequential injunction. (¶¶ 32, 33)
Result
Appeal allowed without costs. High Court judgment set aside; the first appellate judgment confirming the trial decree for declaration and permanent injunction restored.