Belatedly produced sale deeds may be admitted subject to costs, with genuineness determined at trial.

The petitioner was the plaintiff in Title Suit No. 134 of 2006, seeking declaration of title and confirmation of possession over the properties described in Schedules 1 and 2 of the plaint.

At the belated stage of the trial, he filed an application dated 3 March 2017 seeking to produce and mark in evidence a sale deed dated 5 November 1963, executed by Mosmat Madho Devi in his favour, particularly to establish his title over Plot Nos. 3860 and 3893 of Khata No. 188.

The defendants opposed the application, alleging that the sale deed was false and fabricated and had been produced only to delay the suit.

The Sub-Judge-V, Madhepura, rejected the petitioner’s application by order dated 6 May 2017, which was challenged before the High Court.

Whether the Trial Court erred in refusing to receive and mark the sale deed dated 5 November 1963 as evidence merely because it was produced at a belated stage of the trial?

Whether the question of the sale deed’s genuineness or alleged falsity was to be decided at the stage of its admission or during the trial on merits?

The Court applied the principle that a document appearing relevant and necessary to establish a party’s title may be permitted to be brought on record and considered in evidence, notwithstanding delay in its production, subject to appropriate conditions such as payment of costs.

The Court further held that objections concerning the genuineness, validity, or alleged fabrication of the document are matters for adjudication by the Trial Court on the basis of evidence and final arguments, and do not, by themselves, justify refusal to receive the document at the threshold.

No specific statutory provision or precedent was cited in the judgment.

The High Court found that the sale deed was directly relevant to the petitioner’s claim of title over the suit properties, including Plot Nos. 3860 and 3893 of Khata No. 188.

Although the document had been produced at the fag end of the trial, the delay could be addressed by imposing costs rather than excluding potentially material evidence altogether.

The defendants’ contention that the sale deed was fake raised an issue concerning its genuineness, which was to be examined by the Trial Court during the adjudication of the suit and not conclusively determined while considering its production.

The defendants were accordingly given liberty to rebut the document and challenge its evidentiary value.

The petitioner was permitted to submit the sale deed and other required documents, subject to payment of costs of ₹2,000 to the defendants/respondents for the delay.

The Trial Court was directed to consider the document and determine its genuineness and evidentiary value in accordance with law; the respondents were permitted to rebut it.

Both parties were directed to cooperate in expediting the trial, and the civil miscellaneous application was disposed of.