LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a certified copy of a registered sale deed can be admitted as evidence to prove the contents of the original document, and whether the High Court can overturn concurrent findings of fact by lower courts in a second appeal.

CASE TYPE: Civil Law – Property Dispute

Case Name: Appaiya vs. Andimuthu @ Thangapandi & Ors.

Judgment Date: 20 September 2023

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 20 September 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 835

Judges: B.R. Gavai, J. and C.T. Ravikumar, J.

Can a High Court reverse concurrent findings of fact by lower courts in a second appeal, especially when the findings are based on registered sale deeds? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a property dispute case, clarifying the evidentiary value of certified copies of registered sale deeds and the limits of the High Court’s power under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. This judgment emphasizes the importance of adhering to established legal procedures and the sanctity of registered documents in property disputes. The bench comprised Justices B.R. Gavai and C.T. Ravikumar, with the majority opinion authored by Justice C.T. Ravikumar.

Case Background

The case revolves around a property dispute in Thimmanayakanur village, Madurai District. The appellant, Appaiya, claimed ownership of the entire suit property based on a series of transactions. The dispute began with a mortgage in 1918 and culminated in a sale to Appaiya in 1963. The respondents, Andimuthu and others, contested Appaiya’s claim, asserting that their predecessors also had rights to a portion of the property. The core of the dispute lies in the interpretation of various sale deeds and the extent of the property transferred.

Timeline

Date Event
09.08.1918 Vellaiya Thevar mortgages the suit property to Irulappan.
1928 Puliyankaladi files O.S. No.519/1928 against sons of Vellaiya Thevar for loan recovery.
27.08.1928 Sons of Vellaiya Thevar sell the property to Puliyankaladi as per Ext. A1.
31.05.1961 Puliyankaladi executes a mortgage deed in favor of Veluchamy and Velammal.
24.06.1963 Appaiya (plaintiff) redeems the mortgage deeds.
15.07.1963 Appaiya purchases the suit property from Puliyankaladi as per Ext. A5.
05.06.1994 Defendants attempt to trespass into Appaiya’s property.
1996 Appaiya files O.S.No.104/96 in the District Munsif Court, Andipatti.
30.09.1997 District Munsif Court decrees the suit in favor of Appaiya.
03.07.2001 Sub-Court, Periyankulam confirms the trial court’s judgment in A.S.No.65/97.
17.10.2012 Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court reverses the concurrent judgments in S.A.(MD) No. 802 of 2004.
20.09.2023 Supreme Court allows the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s judgment.

Course of Proceedings

The trial court, the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Andipatti, decreed the suit in favor of Appaiya, declaring him the owner of the entire suit property and granting a permanent injunction against the defendants. The first appellate court, the Sub-Court, Periyankulam, upheld the trial court’s decision. However, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, in a second appeal, reversed the concurrent judgments, limiting Appaiya’s entitlement to 96 cents of the property. The High Court framed three substantial questions of law, which were decided in favor of the defendants, leading to the reversal of the lower courts’ decisions.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court examined several key provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and the Registration Act, 1908. These included:

  • Section 61 of the Evidence Act, 1872: This section states that the contents of documents may be proved either by primary or secondary evidence.
  • Section 63 of the Evidence Act, 1872: Defines secondary evidence, including certified copies of documents.
  • Section 65 of the Evidence Act, 1872: This section specifies the cases in which secondary evidence relating to documents may be given. Specifically, it allows secondary evidence when the original is a public document, and a certified copy of the document is admissible.

    “65. Cases in which secondary evidence relating to documents may be given. ––
    Secondary evidence may be given of the existence, condition, or contents of a document in the following cases: ––
    (a)..
    (b)..
    (c)..
    (d)..
    (e) when the original is a public document within the meaning of section 74;
    …………………………………………………
    In case (e) or (f), a certified copy of the document, but no other kind of secondary evidence, is admissible.”
  • Section 74 of the Evidence Act, 1872: Defines what constitutes a public document, including public records of private documents.
  • Section 76 of the Evidence Act, 1872: Specifies how certified copies of public documents are to be issued.
  • Section 77 of the Evidence Act, 1872: This section states that certified copies may be produced in proof of the contents of public documents.

    “77. Proof of documents by production of certified copies. –– Such certified copies may be produced in proof of the contents of the public documents or parts of the public documents of which they purport to be copies.”
  • Section 79 of the Evidence Act, 1872: This section deals with the presumption as to the genuineness of certified copies.

    “79. Presumption as to genuineness of certified copies. – The Court shall presume [to be genuine ] every document purporting to be a certificate, certified copy or other document, which is by Law declared to be admissible as evidence of any particular fact, and which purports to be duly certified by any officer [of the Central Government or of a State Government, or by any officer [in the State of Jammu and Kashmir ] who is duly authorized thereto by the Central Government ]:”
  • Section 57(5) of the Registration Act, 1908: This section states that certified copies of entries given by registering officers are admissible for proving the contents of the original documents.

    “57. Registering officers to allow inspection of certain books and indexes, and to give certified copies of entries. —
    (1)..
    (2)..
    (3)..
    (4)..
    (5) All copies given under this section shall be signed and sealed by the registering officer, and shall be admissible for the purpose of proving the contents of the original documents.”

Arguments

The appellant argued that the High Court erred in reversing the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts. They contended that the certified copy of the sale deed (Ext. A1) was admissible as evidence under the Evidence Act, 1872, and that the High Court should not have re-appreciated the evidence.

See also  Supreme Court clarifies interest calculation on decreed amounts: Nepa Limited vs. Manoj Kumar Agrawal (2022)

The respondents argued that the certified copy of the sale deed (Ext. A1) was not sufficient to prove the title of the entire suit property. They claimed that the original document was not produced, and there was no independent witness to corroborate its genuineness. They also argued that the plaintiff had not proved how the sons of Vellaiya Thevar obtained the property to alienate it.

Main Submission Sub-Submission Party
Admissibility of Ext. A1 Certified copy of registered sale deed is admissible as secondary evidence. Appellant
Original document not produced; no independent witness to prove genuineness. Respondent
Proof of Title Plaintiff proved title through registered sale deeds (Exts. A1 and A5). Appellant
Plaintiff failed to prove how the sons of Vellaiya Thevar obtained the property. Respondent
Scope of Second Appeal High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence and reverse concurrent findings of fact. Appellant
Lower courts did not properly appreciate the evidence. Respondent

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The High Court framed the following substantial questions of law:

  1. Whether the courts below were right in construing Ext. A1 sale deed dated 27.08.1928 in favor of Puliyankaladi, the predecessor-in-title of the suit property, contrary to the extent and boundaries described in the said sale deed?
  2. Whether the courts below erred in law in presuming that the appellant/first defendant had admitted the title of the predecessor, Puliyankaladi, in view of Exts. A2, A3, A4, and other deeds?
  3. Whether the courts below erred in law in casting the burden of proof on the appellants/defendants to prove that the plaintiff is not entitled to the entirety of the suit property in a suit for declaration of title by the plaintiff?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Issue Court’s Treatment
Whether the courts below were right in construing Ext. A1 sale deed dated 27.08.1928 in favor of Puliyankaladi, the predecessor-in-title of the suit property, contrary to the extent and boundaries described in the said sale deed? The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in its interpretation of Ext. A1. The sale deed clearly described the property as 2 acres and 61 cents in Survey No. 845/1, and the High Court’s conclusion that it did not cover the entire extent was incorrect.
Whether the courts below erred in law in presuming that the appellant/first defendant had admitted the title of the predecessor, Puliyankaladi, in view of Exts. A2, A3, A4, and other deeds? The Supreme Court did not directly address this issue, as it found that the High Court’s reversal was primarily based on the misinterpretation of Ext. A1 and the admissibility of certified copies of registered sale deeds.
Whether the courts below erred in law in casting the burden of proof on the appellants/defendants to prove that the plaintiff is not entitled to the entirety of the suit property in a suit for declaration of title by the plaintiff? The Supreme Court held that the lower courts were correct in casting the burden of proof on the defendants, as the plaintiff had discharged his initial burden by producing the registered sale deeds.

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Authority Court Legal Point How Considered
Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao & Anr. [(1999) 3 SCC 573] Supreme Court of India Interference with concurrent findings of fact in second appeal Cited to show that concurrent findings can be interfered with if perverse or based on no evidence.
Yadarao Dajiba Shrawane (D) by LRS v. Nanilal Harakchand Shah (D) & Ors. [(2002) 6 SCC 404] Supreme Court of India Interference with concurrent findings of fact in second appeal Cited to show that High Court can interfere if findings are based on misinterpretation of documents or inadmissible evidence.
Lankeshwar Malakar v. R. Deka [(2006) 13 SCC 570] Supreme Court of India Definition of substantial question of law Cited to explain that a substantial question of law must be of public importance or affect parties’ rights.
Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari [(2001) 3 SCC 179] Supreme Court of India Definition of substantial question of law Cited to further clarify the meaning of “substantial question of law” and the test to determine it.
SK. Bhikan v. Mehamoodabee [(2017) 5 SCC 127] Supreme Court of India Interpretation of documents as substantial question of law Cited to show that interpreting documents can constitute a substantial question of law.
R. Nainar Pillai and Anr. v. Subbiah Pillai [2007 SCC OnLine Mad 457 / (2008) 3 Mad LJ 219] High Court of Judicature at Madras Admissibility of registration copy of sale deed Distinguished; held not applicable as the case was decided based on the specific facts of the case.
Section 61, Evidence Act, 1872 Statute Proof of contents of documents Explained that contents of documents can be proved by primary or secondary evidence.
Section 63, Evidence Act, 1872 Statute Definition of secondary evidence Explained that certified copies are secondary evidence.
Section 65, Evidence Act, 1872 Statute Cases where secondary evidence is admissible Explained that secondary evidence is admissible for public documents.
Section 74, Evidence Act, 1872 Statute Definition of public documents Explained that public records of private documents are public documents.
Section 76, Evidence Act, 1872 Statute Issuance of certified copies Explained the procedure for issuing certified copies of public documents.
Section 77, Evidence Act, 1872 Statute Use of certified copies as evidence Explained that certified copies can be used to prove the contents of public documents.
Section 79, Evidence Act, 1872 Statute Presumption of genuineness of certified copies Explained that certified copies are presumed to be genuine.
Section 57(5), Registration Act, 1908 Statute Admissibility of certified copies Explained that certified copies are admissible to prove the contents of original documents.
See also  Supreme Court Limits Review Jurisdiction in Property Dispute: S. Murali Sundaram vs. Jothibai Kannan & Ors. (2023)

Judgment

Submission Court’s Treatment
Certified copy of Ext. A1 is not admissible. Rejected. The Court held that certified copies of registered sale deeds are admissible under the Evidence Act, 1872 and the Registration Act, 1908.
Original document of Ext. A1 was not produced. Rejected. The Court stated that once a document is registered and a certified copy is produced, the original is not required.
The High Court can re-appreciate evidence in second appeal. Rejected. The Court held that the High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence and reverse concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence.
The plaintiff failed to prove how the sons of Vellaiya Thevar obtained the property. Rejected. The Court held that once the sale deed was registered, the burden shifted to the defendants to prove otherwise.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

  • Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao & Anr. [(1999) 3 SCC 573]*: The Court acknowledged that this case allows for interference with concurrent findings if they are perverse or based on no evidence, but found that the present case did not meet those criteria.
  • Yadarao Dajiba Shrawane (D) by LRS v. Nanilal Harakchand Shah (D) & Ors. [(2002) 6 SCC 404]*: The Court agreed that misinterpretation of documents or ignoring material evidence allows for High Court interference, but held that the High Court in the present case had misapplied this principle.
  • Lankeshwar Malakar v. R. Deka [(2006) 13 SCC 570]*: The Court used this case to define a “substantial question of law” as one that is of public importance or affects the rights of the parties.
  • Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari [(2001) 3 SCC 179]*: The Court relied on this case to further explain the meaning of “substantial question of law.”
  • SK. Bhikan v. Mehamoodabee [(2017) 5 SCC 127]*: The Court cited this case to support the idea that interpreting documents can raise a substantial question of law.
  • R. Nainar Pillai and Anr. v. Subbiah Pillai [2007 SCC OnLine Mad 457 / (2008) 3 Mad LJ 219]*: The Court distinguished this case, stating it was not applicable to the present case due to different facts.
  • Sections 61, 63, 65, 74, 76, 77, and 79 of the Evidence Act, 1872*: The Court relied extensively on these sections to establish that certified copies of public documents are admissible as secondary evidence.
  • Section 57(5) of the Registration Act, 1908*: The Court used this section to show that certified copies of registered documents are admissible to prove the contents of the original.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

  • The admissibility of certified copies of registered sale deeds as valid evidence under the Evidence Act, 1872 and the Registration Act, 1908.
  • The High Court’s improper re-appreciation of evidence and reversal of concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts.
  • The clear description of the property in Ext. A1 sale deed as 2 acres and 61 cents, which was not correctly interpreted by the High Court.
  • The fact that the execution of Ext. A1 was not disputed by the respondent.
See also  Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Due to Weak Circumstantial Evidence: Sunita vs. State of Haryana (2019)
Reason Percentage
Admissibility of Certified Copies 40%
Improper Re-appreciation of Evidence by High Court 30%
Correct Interpretation of Sale Deed Ext. A1 20%
Undisputed Execution of Ext. A1 10%
Analysis Percentage
Fact 30%
Law 70%

The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on legal considerations, with a focus on the correct interpretation of the law and the admissibility of evidence. The factual aspects of the case were considered, but the legal principles were given greater weight.

Logical Reasoning

Issue: Admissibility of certified copy of registered sale deed (Ext. A1)
↓
Is Ext. A1 a public document? (Section 74 of Evidence Act)
↓
Yes. Registered sale deeds are public documents.
↓
Can a certified copy be used as evidence? (Section 77 of Evidence Act)
↓
Yes. Section 77 allows certified copies to prove contents of public documents.
↓
Is there a law declaring certified copies admissible? (Section 79 of Evidence Act)
↓
Yes. Section 57(5) of Registration Act declares certified copies admissible.
↓
Conclusion: Certified copy of Ext. A1 is admissible evidence.

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in reversing the concurrent judgments of the lower courts. The Court emphasized that the certified copy of the registered sale deed (Ext. A1) was admissible as evidence under Section 65(e), 77, and 79 of the Evidence Act, 1872, and Section 57(5) of the Registration Act, 1908. The Court also noted that the High Court had improperly re-appreciated the evidence and reversed the concurrent findings of fact, which is not permissible under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

The Court stated, “The cumulative effect of the aforementioned sections of the Evidence Act and Section 57(5) of the Registration Act would make the certified copy of the sale deed No. 1209/1928 dated 27.08.1928 of SRO Andipatti, produced as Ext.A1 admissible in evidence for the purpose of proving the contents of the said original document.”

The Court further noted, “When the execution of Ext.A1 was not disputed by the respondent (in fact in the circumstances it was indisputable) and when the contents of the original sale deed bearing No. 1209/1928 dated 27.08.1928 of SRO Andipatti was proved by production of the certified copy there was absolutely no reason to look for the application of Section 90 or 110 of the Evidence Act, in the instant case.”

The Court concluded, “On a careful and anxious consideration of the impugned judgment we find no ground to sustain the reversal of the concurrent judgments of the courts below by the High Court in exercise of the power under Section 100 CPC, as no ground justifying such exercise exists in the instant case.”

The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and restored the judgment of the Sub-Court, Periyankulam, which had confirmed the decree of the trial court.

Key Takeaways

The key takeaways from this judgment are:

  • Certified copies of registered sale deeds are admissible as valid evidence to prove the contents of the original document.
  • High Courts cannot re-appreciate evidence and reverse concurrent findings of fact by lower courts in a second appeal unless the findings are perverse or based on no evidence.
  • Once a registered sale deed is produced, the burden shifts to the opposing party to prove otherwise.
  • The interpretation of registered sale deeds should be based on the clear language of the document.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not give any specific directions other than setting aside the High Court’s judgment and restoring the lower courts’ decisions.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a certified copy of a registered sale deed is admissible as evidence to prove the contents of the original document, and High Courts cannot reverse concurrent findings of fact by lower courts unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. This judgment reinforces the evidentiary value of registered documents and clarifies the limits of the High Court’s power in second appeals. There is no change in the previous position of law, but it reinforces the existing principles.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s judgment in Appaiya vs. Andimuthu clarifies the legal position regarding the admissibility of certified copies of registered sale deeds and the scope of the High Court’s powers in second appeals. The Court upheld the sanctity of registered documents and reinforced the importance of adhering to established legal procedures, ensuring that property disputes are resolved based on sound legal principles and evidence.

Source: Appaiya vs. Andimuthu