Guwahati High Court rules in favour of the certified document

Guwahati High Court rules in favour of the certified document

Copy of the sale deed admissible under the Evidence Act when the lawyer lost the original

The Guwahati High Court has held that the certified copy of the sale deed was admissible under the Indian Evidence Act (IEA). Notably, the document was lost for no fault of the appellant. It was lost from the custody of the appellant's lawyer and the execution of the original sale deed was proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Justice Parthivjyoti Saikia said that under the IEA, "The burden heavily lies upon the party concerned to show that the document was destroyed or lost and cannot be produced for some reasons, but such reasons must not arise from default or negligence of the party concerned."

He set aside the judgment of the Kamrup, Amingaon civil judge, who declined to allow a certified copy of the sale deed in evidence.

The appellant had purchased a plot of land from the respondent's father, executing a registered sale deed to that effect. Subsequently, the respondent dispossessed him of a portion of the property. As a result, the appellant filed a suit requesting for recovery of the same as well as the declaration of his rights, title and interest over the plot of land.

The respondent denied the sale deed having ever been executed, claiming that his father never sold the land. He said his father had filed a complaint before the deputy commissioner against the appellant after learning that he had been occupying the land on the basis of the sale deed.

Since the appellant's lawyer misplaced the sale deed, the trial and appellate courts ruled against the appellant holding that a certified copy of the same was inadmissible. This led to the appeal before the High Court.

The counsel for the appellant submitted that filing a certified copy of the sale deed fell under the IEA. He pointed out how the same was not lost because of any "default or negligence" on the part of the appellant.

He testified before the courts that the appellant handed over the original sale deed to him, but it was he who lost the file containing the document. A witness from the office of the sub-registrar proved the execution of the sale deed.

The respondent submitted that the fact of loss or disappearance of the sale deed had not been properly explained, and IEA debarred the production of a certified copy of the document in such circumstances.

The court accepted that the lawyer who lost the deed was cross-examined by the respondent yet his "evidence remained un-impeached on all the points.

Furthermore, a junior assistant in the office of the sub-registrar had produced a volume, which showed that the father of the present respondent had executed a registered sale deed, numbered and certified it, in favour of the appellant.

Stating that the evidence inspired confidence, the judge ruled, "It has been proven beyond doubt that the original sale deed executed by the father of the respondent in favor of the appellant in respect of the entire three bighas of land, was lost without the fault or negligence of the appellant."

The judge pointed out that the appellate court had committed an error.