Registered Sale Deeds are Public Documents and Admissible as Secondary Evidence Without Satisfying Section 65 Preconditions

The plaintiffs (legal heirs of Late Biswajit Singha) claimed title over land measuring 2 Kathas 7 Lechas based on a registered sale deed [Exhibit-2] dated 17.08.1994.

They alleged the defendant was a permissive occupier/caretaker under a three-year agreement [Exhibit-11] who refused to vacate.

The defendant contested, claiming the true owner was Sri Achyut Chandra Das (DW-2), who allegedly purchased the land in 1969 via Registered Sale Deed No. 3273 [Exhibit-Kha].

The Trial Court and First Appellate Court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, holding that the defendant’s documents (Exhibits-Ka and Kha) were inadmissible secondary evidence as the defendant failed to satisfy the foundational requirements of Section 65 of the Evidence Act.

The defendant appealed to the High Court.

1. Whether the certified copies of the sale deeds (Exts. 'Ka' and 'Kha') were duly exhibited during trial without objection.

2. Whether Exts. 'Ka' and 'Kha' are admissible in evidence in terms of the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

The Court applied Section 74(2) of the Indian Evidence Act, which defines public records of private documents (such as registration entries of sale deeds) as "public documents".

Under Section 65(e), secondary evidence in the form of certified copies is admissible when the original is a public document.

Section 77 allows production of certified copies to prove the contents of public documents, and Section 79 creates a presumption of genuineness for such copies.

The court relied on Appaiya v. Andimuthu @ Thangapandi (2024) to establish that for public documents under Section 65(e), the proponent need not satisfy the foundational requirements (like proving loss or destruction) mandated for other types of secondary evidence.

The "Best Evidence Rule" [Section 62] establishes that primary evidence (original documents) holds superior evidentiary weight over secondary evidence.

The Court found that both lower courts erred in holding Exhibits-Ka and Kha inadmissible. Since these exhibits were certified copies of registered deeds maintained by the Sub-Registrar, they constitute public records of private documents under Section 74(2) and are admissible as secondary evidence under the specific exception of Section 65(e) without further explanation for the non-production of originals.

The Court then applied the "Best Evidence Rule" to compare the competing claims. It noted that the plaintiffs produced the original sale deeds (Exhibits-1 and 2), which constitute primary evidence, whereas the defendant relied solely on secondary evidence.

The court observed that the alleged predecessor-in-title (Achyut Das) had previously failed in multiple legal attempts to establish his title over the same land.

Consequently, despite the technical admissibility of the defendant’s exhibits, the preponderance of probability favored the plaintiffs' primary evidence and proven chain of title.

The High Court held that this did not change the outcome because the plaintiffs’ primary evidence (original deeds) outweighed the defendant's secondary evidence.

The Regular Second Appeal was dismissed, and the concurrent findings of the lower courts granting the decree of title and eviction in favor of the plaintiffs were upheld.