[ad_1]
Patna High Court
Devi Thakur @ Devilal Thakur And Ors vs Rajendra Rai And Ors on 31 July, 2025
Author: Arun Kumar Jha
Bench: Arun Kumar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.970 of 2017
======================================================
1. Devi Thakur @ Devilal Thakur Son of Late Bishuni Thakur.
2.1. Sumitra Devi, Wife of late Shiv Shankar Thakur Resident of Chakmehsi,
P.O. Purshottampur, P.S. Maniyari, District- Muzaffarpur.
2.2. Devanand Thakur, Son of late ShivShankar Thakur, Resident of Chakmehsi,
P.O. Purshottampur, P.S. Maniyari, District- Muzaffarpur.
2.3. Anil Thakur, Son of late Shivshankar Thakur, Resident of Chakmehsi, P.O.
Purshottampur, P.S. Maniyari, District- Muzaffarpur.
2.4. Rajesh Kumar, Son of late ShivShankar Thakur, Resident of Chakmehsi,
P.O. Purshottampur, P.S. Maniyari, District- Muzaffarpur.
2.5. Sharmila Devi, D/o of late Shiv Shankar Thakur and Wife of Kamleshwar
Thakur, Resident of Village- Manpur, P.O. Anirudh Belsar, P.S.-O.P. Belsar,
District-Vaishali.
2.6. Babita Devi, D/o of late Shiv Shankar Thakur and Wife of late Devnarayan
Thakur, Resident of Village-Goraiya, P.O. - Goraiyadih, P.S. Kudhani,
District-Muzaffarpur, Bihar.
2.7. Anjani Devi, D/o of late Shiv Shankar Thakur and Wife of Nawal Kishore
Thakur, Resident of Village- Belsar, P.O. Anirudh Belsar, P.S.-O.P. Belsar,
District- Vaishali, Bihar.
3. Ram Ekbal Thakur, Both 2 to 4 Son of Late Paltu Thakur.
4.1. Malti Devi, W/o of late Mahesh Thakur, Resident of Chakmehsi, P.O.
Purshottampur, P.S. Maniyari, District- Muzaffarpur.
4.2. Nankishore Thakur, Son of late Mahesh Thakur, Resident of Chakmehsi,
P.O. Purshottampur, P.S. Maniyari, District- Muzaffarpur.
4.3. Ajay Kumar, Son of late Mahesh Thakur, Resident of Chakmehsi, P.O.
Purshottampur, P.S. Maniyari, District- Muzaffarpur.
4.4. Arvind Kumar, Son of late Mahesh Thakur, Resident of Chakmehsi, P.O.
Purshottampur, P.S. Maniyari, District- Muzaffarpur.
4.5. Sanjay Thakur, Son of late Mahesh Thakur, Resident of Chakmehsi, P.O.
Purshottampur, P.S. Maniyari, District- Muzaffarpur.
4.6. Punam Devi, D/o of late Mahesh Thakur and Wife of Bhola Thakur,
Resident of Village- Sakrabaji, P.S. Sakra, District-Muzaffarpur, Bihar.
5. Tulsi Thakur.
6. Suresh Thakur.
7. Arun Thakur, Both 5 to 8 son of Late Mahabir Thakur, All resident of
Village- Chakmehsi, P.O.- Purshottampur, P.S.- Maniyari, District-
Muzaffarpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.1. Arjun Rai, Son of late Rajendra Rai, Resident of Chakmehsi, P.O.
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.970 of 2017 dt.31-07-2025
2/11
Purshottampur, P.S. Maniyari, District- Muzaffarpur.
1.2. Bhujbal Rai, Son of late Rajendra Rai, Resident of Chakmehsi, P.O.
Purshottampur, P.S. Maniyari, District- Muzaffarpur.
2. Mostt. Sia Devi, Wife of Late Sadhu Sharan Rai.
3. Smt. Urmila Devi, Daughter of Late Sadhu Sharan Rai, All resident of
Village- Chakmehsi, P.O.- Purshottampur, P.S.- Maniyari, District-
Muzaffarpur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Krishna Kant Singh, Advocate
Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Girish Chandra Jha, Advocate
Mr. Ashish, Advocate
Mrs. Priyanka, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 31-07-2025
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order
dated 23.01.20217 passed by learned Munsif West, Muzaffarpur
in Title Suit No. 36 of 2007, whereby and whereunder the
petition filed by the plaintiffs/petitioners for taking on record
and marking exhibit a certified copy of registered patta has been
rejected.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that the document was filed while the examination of plaintiffs
has been going on and plaintiff witness no. 3 was examined and
discharged. The document was not filed belatedly. Learned
counsel further submits that the learned trial court has rejected
the petition only on the ground that the document was not a
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.970 of 2017 dt.31-07-2025
3/11
public document and further directed the plaintiffs to take steps
in accordance with law for getting the said document exhibited.
Learned counsel further submits that, however, it has been
settled that the certified copy of registered document is a public
document and therefore, the impugned order has been passed in
wrong appreciation of law. Learned counsel further submits that
whatever may the evidentiary value of the document sought to
be exhibited, merely marking exhibit does not mean that it is
proved and the plaintiffs have to take further steps for proving
the said document in accordance with law. Thus, the impugned
order is not sustainable and the same may be set aside.
4. The contention of learned counsel for the
petitioners has been vehemently opposes by the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of defendants/respondents 1st set. Learned
counsel submits that the registered patta is not a public
document and the learned trial court has rightly passed the
order. Learned counsel further submits that there is no infirmity
in the impugned order.
5. The dispute in the present petition is covered
by two decisions of this Court in the case of Ram Briksha
Singh & Ors. Vs. Ramsharay Singh & Ors. (Civil Misc. No.
1824 of 2018) and Abdul Rashid Vs. Iftakhar Hussain @
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.970 of 2017 dt.31-07-2025
4/11
Dablu & Ors. (Civil Misc. No. 1651 of 2019). This Court in the
case of Ram Briksha Singh (supra) in paragraph 7, 8, 9 and 10
held as under:-
"7. Section 75 of the Evidence Act
provides that all other documents are
private. Now a sale deed is no doubt a
private document but whether its
certified copy would come under the
category of public records kept in any
state of private document? The
Division Bench of Madhaya Pradesh
High Court in the case of Smt. Rekha
Rana & Ors. Vs. Smt. Ratneshree
Jain, reported in AIR 2006 MP 107
has held the proposition that a
certified copy of a sale deed is a
public document or a registered sale
deed is a public document are
erroneous. It has further been held
that a registered document (deed of
sale etc.) is not a public document. It
is a private document. Further, a
certified copy of a registered
document, copied from Book and
issued by the Registering Officer, is
neither a public document, nor a
certified copy of a private document,
but is a certified copy of a public
document. In other words, a certified
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.970 of 2017 dt.31-07-2025
5/11
copy of a registered document is a
certified copy of public document. The
basis for saying so lies in the fact that
when a sale deed is registered before
the Registering Authority, necessary
entries are maintained in the book
kept at the Registration Office and,
thus, it is a record 'kept in a state of
private documents' and, therefore, a
public document. When a person
applies for the certified copy of
document registered in the office
which is entered/filed in Book 1, a
certified copy of document as
copies/filed in Book 1 is furnished to
the applicant. Such certified copy of
any entries in Book 1 is a certified
copy of a public document. But such
certified copy of registered document
extracted from Book 1 is not itself a
public document. It is really a true
copy of a copy (copy of original deed
entered in Book 1). The discussion has
been made by the Division Bench of
the Madhya Pradesh High Court
considering the provisions of the
Registration Act, 1908, specially
Sections 51 and 57. Thus, it has been
concluded that a certified copy of a
registered document issued by
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.970 of 2017 dt.31-07-2025
6/11
Registering Officer, by copying from
Book 1, is a certified copy of a public
document. Similar question came up
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Appaiya Vs. Andimuthu @
Thangapandi & Ors., [Civil Appeal
No. 14630 of 2015 {@ SLP (C) No.
10013 of 2015}], wherein the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has observed in
paragraph no. 29, which reads as
under:-
"29. Having regard to all the
aforesaid circumstances and in the
light of the various provisions of the
Evidence Act mentioned hereinbefore
we will firstly consider the question
whether the appellant/plaintiff had
succeeded in proving the contents of
Ext.A1. Going by Section 65(e) when
the original of a document is a public
document within the meaning of
Section 74, secondary evidence
relating its original viz., as to its
existence, condition or contents may
be given by producing its certified
copy. Ext.A1, indisputably is the
certified copy of sale deed No.
1209/1928 dated 27.08.1928 of SRO
Andipatti. In terms of Section 74(2) of
the Evidence Act, its original falls
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.970 of 2017 dt.31-07-2025
7/11
within the definition of public
document and there is no case that it
is not certified in the manner provided
under the Evidence Act. As noticed
hereinbefore, the sole objection is that
what was produced as Ext.A1 is only a
certified copy of the sale deed and its
original was not produced in
evidence. The hollowness and
unsustainability of the said objection
would be revealed on application of
the relevant provisions under the
Evidence Act and the Registration Act,
1908. It is in this regard that Section
77 and 79 of the Evidence Act, as
extracted earlier, assume relevance.
Section 77 provides for the production
of certified copy of a public document
as secondary evidence in proof of
contents of its original. Section 79 is
the provision for presumption as to the
genuineness of certified copies
provided the existence of a law
declaring certified copy of a document
of such nature to be admissible as
evidence. When that be the position
under the aforesaid provisions, taking
note of the fact that the document in
question is a registered sale deed,
falling within the definition of a public
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.970 of 2017 dt.31-07-2025
8/11
document, the question is whether
there exists any law declaring such
certified copy of a document as
admissible in evidence for the purpose
of proving the contents of its original
document. Sub-section (5) of Section
57 of the Registration Act is the
relevant provision that provides that
certified copy given under Section 57
of the Registration Act shall be
admissible for the purpose of proving
the contents of its original document.
In this context it is to be noted that
certified copy issued thereunder is not
a copy of the original document, but is
a copy of the registration entry which
is itself a copy of the original and is a
public document under Section 74(2)
of the Evidence Act and Sub-section
(5) thereof, makes it admissible in
evidence for proving the contents of its
original
................................................
...................................................
............"
(Underlined for emphasis)
8. Now coming back to the dispute in
the present case, in the light of
discussion made hereinbefore, it could
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.970 of 2017 dt.31-07-2025
9/11
be safely concluded that the certified
copy of a registered sale deed would
fall under the category of public
document under Section 74 (2) of the
Evidence Act.
9. Last question which remains is
whether this document could be
marked an exhibit waiving the
requirement of formal proof. Section
76 of the Evidence Act empowers an
officer having the custody of a public
document to give a certified copy at
the Registrar's Office keeps a public
record of all sale deeds registered in
that office. The definition of public
document under Section 74 of the
Evidence Act takes in public records
kept in any state of private document.
A certified copy is therefore
admissible in evidence both under
Section 65 (e) and 65 (f) of the
Evidence Act. The certified copy is,
therefore, secondary evidence of
public record of sale deed kept in the
office of the Registrar. Invoking
Section 57(5) of the Registration Act,
the said copy becomes admissible for
the purpose of proving the contents of
the original document itself.
Therefore, the certified copy becomes
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.970 of 2017 dt.31-07-2025
10/11
admissible in evidence but proof of
execution could not be dispensed with.
10. Section 65 (e) and Section 77 of
the Evidence Act read as under:-
"(a)............
(b)............
(c).............
(d)............
(e) when the original is a public
document within the meaning of
section 74;
(f)............
(g)...........
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."
At the same time, Section 57 (5) of the
Registration Act reads as under:-
"57 (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.""
6. Evidently, marking of the document as exhibit
of certified copy of registered document does not absolve the
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.970 of 2017 dt.31-07-2025
11/11
plaintiffs from proving the execution of the said document in
accordance with law. Therefore, in the light of above noted
decision, I do not think the impugned order could be sustained.
Hence, the order dated 23.01.2017 is set aside and petition dated
11.05.2016
is allowed.
7. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
DKS/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 01.08.2025 Transmission Date NA
[ad_2]
Source link