Page No.# 1/31 GAHC010108502011 2026:GAU-AS:7530 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : RSA/199/2011 PRADIP BARMAN S/O SRI HAREN BARMAN, R/O BAKHRA PARA PART-I, NEAR LAKHI MANDIR, P.O., P.S. and DIST. BONGAIGAON, ASSAM. VERSUS KRISHNA SINGHA AND ORS W/O LATE BISWAJIT SINGHA. 2:SMT. DUBLINA SINGHA AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS D/O LATE BISWAJIT SINGHA. 3:SMT. KRIPANJALI SINGHA AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS D/O LATE BISWAJIT SINGHA BOTH THE PLAINTIFFS NO. 2 AND 3 ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER I.E. SMT. KRISHNA SINGHA THE PLAINTIFF NO. 1 ALL ARE THE RESIDENTS OF VILL. BARSONGAON P.O. MULAGAON P.S. and DIST. BONGAIGAON ASSAM Page No.# 2/31 - B e f o r e- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN Advocates for the appellant : Mr. A. C. Sarma, Senior Counsel, Assisted by, Mr. G. Bharadwaj. Advocate for the respondents : Mr. D. Mozumdar, Senior Counsel, Assisted by, Mr. B. J. Mukherjee. Date of which Judgment is reserved : 21.04.2026 Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 01.06.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the : N/A operative part of the Judgment? Whether the full judgment has been : Yes pronounced? JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV) Heard Mr. A. C. Sarma, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. G. Bharadwaj, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. D. Mozumdar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. B. J. Mukherjee, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This Regular Second Appeal, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is directed against the Judgment and Decree, dated 19.04.2011, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Bongaigaon, in Title Appeal No. 01/2010. Page No.# 3/31 3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned Judgment and Decree, dated 19.04.2011, the learned Civil Judge, Bongaigaon, (hereinafter, ‘First Appellate Court’); has dismissed the appeal and thereby, affirmed the Judgment and Decree, dated 10.07.2009, passed by the learned Munsiff, Bongaigaon (hereinafter, ‘Trial Court’); in Title Suit No. 27/2006. 4. It is also to be noted here that vide Judgment and Decree, dated 10.07.2009, the learned Trial Court, in T.S. No. 27/2006, has declared right, title and interest over the suit schedule land in favour of the plaintiff and ordered for eviction of the defendant and granted permanent injunction, restraining the defendant, their men and agents from entering the suit land, after restoration of possession of the suit land. 5. For the sake of convenience and to avoid confusion, the status of the parties, as indicated in the Title Suit No. 27/2006, before the learned Trial Court, is adopted here in this appeal. Background facts :- 6. The background facts, leading to filing of the present appeal, are briefly stated as under - “The plaintiffs’ case is that Late Biswajit Singha, husband of the plaintiff No. 1 and father of the plaintiff Nos. 2 & 3, had purchased a plot of land measuring 2 Kathas 7 Lechas, covered by Dag No. 121/321 (old), 71 (new) and Patta No. 35 (old) 222 (New), situated at Village-Bhakarapara Part-I, under Bongaigaon Revenue Circle, from one Sri Radhyashyam Agarwala, through a Registered Sale Deed No. 614, dated 17.08.1994. After the Page No.# 4/31 transaction, Late Biswajit Singha, took delivery of possession of the suit land and got his name mutated in the record of rights. On 02.11.1998, Biswajit Singha was killed by the extremists. After his death, the plaintiff No. 1, being the legal heir of Late Biswajit Singha, got her name mutated in the record of rights and at the relevant point of time, there was a thatched house constructed over the said plot of land. Thereafter, on 07.06.2002, the defendant had approached the plaintiff No. 1 to allow him to live with his family in the thatched house over the suit land, temporarily. Since the defendant was well known to the plaintiffs since long, the plaintiff No. 1 permitted the defendant to live in the said thatched house as a caretaker and accordingly, she entered into an agreement with the defendant on 07.06.2002, allowing him to stay in the said house for three years along with his family, as caretaker. Thereafter, upon expiry of the period of agreement, the plaintiff No. 1 had visited the suit land with labourers in order to clean the field, so that she can start construction of boundary wall, approved by the Bongaigaon Development Authority. But, the defendant prevented the plaintiff No. 1 from doing so, with the help of some muscle men and as such, the plaintiff lodged an ejahar at Bongaigaon Police Station, on 07.06.2005. Thereafter, the plaintiff No. 1 sent a legal notice to the defendant on 22.07.2005, asking him to vacate the house and the suit land. But, said notice was returned by the postman on Page No.# 5/31 23.07.2005, 25.07.2005, 28.07.2005 and on 01.08.2005, with remarks that the person was ‘NOT FOUND and NOT KNOWN’ and thereafter, the plaintiffs had filed a suit against the defendant, seeking the reliefs as aforesaid. The defendant contested the suit by filing his written statement, wherein, he contended inter-alia that, there is no cause of action for the suit, the suit is not maintainable and bad for the non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties, that the suit is barred by Limitation and that the suit is hit by the principles of wavier, estoppels and acquiescence. It is also stated by the defendants that the allegation of the plaintiff is false and baseless, because the plaintiff has no right, title and interest over the suit land and the actual owner and possessor of the schedule mentioned land is one Sri Achyut Chandra Das, who purchased a plot of land, measuring 1 Bigha O Katha 6 Lechas, of Khatian No. 45, of Dag No. 121, on 28.09.1969, vide Registered Sale Deed No. 3273, and got delivery of possession, constructed a thatched house there and since then, the said land is in possession of Sri Achyut Chandra Das. As Sri Achyut Chandra Das is a person from Village-Golia of Barpeta district, he could not look after the suit land all the time and for that reason, he allowed Sri Saligram Sarma to look after the said land in one portion and the defendant in the other and the portion of land which was looked after by the defendant is the suit land. Page No.# 6/31 It is also contended that Sri Achyut Chandra Das, on 06.03.1985, had issued a letter of Authority in an unregistered form, allowing the defendant to stay on the suit land and look after the same and on 18.04.2005, he once again executed a General power of Attorney in favour of the Defendant confirming his earlier declaration. The defendant also stated that he had never entered into any agreement to stay in the suit land as a caretaker for three years, rather, he had alleged that, during the pendency of this suit, some unknown persons took his signature on some blank papers forcefully and threatened him not to disclose the incident. Thereafter, with permission of the Court, the plaintiffs amended the plaint by incorporating the fact that, Sri Achyut Chandra Das had filed a Title Suit, in respect of the suit land against the plaintiffs, being No. T.S. 10/1995, before the Court of learned District Judge, Bongaigaon, which was dismissed on 07.02.1998, for default. Thereafter, Sri Achyut Chandra Das filed a revision under Order 9 Rule 9, read with Section 151 of C.P.C., upon which, Misc.(J) Case No. 31/1998, was registered before the Court of the learned District Judge, Bongaigaon. The said Misc. (J) Case was transferred to the learned Civil Judge, Bongaigaon, and thereafter, the same was renumbered as Misc. (J) Case No. 14/1999, and the same was dismissed on 18.08.1999, for non production of witnesses by the petitioner. Page No.# 7/31 Thereafter, said Sri Achyut Chandra Das had filed a petition under Section 151 of C.P.C., being Misc. (J) Case No. 36/2001, before the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Bongaigaon, which was also dismissed on 13.09.2001, in view of the fact that the plaintiff stated that the Sri Achyut Chandra Das could not establish his right, title, interest and possession over the suit land. The defendant had filed additional written statement, wherein, he had stated that the cases of Sri Achyut Chandra Das were dismissed only on the ground of procedural technicalities and not on merit. Moreover, Sri Achyut Chandra Das is in continuous possession of the suit land, through his agents. Thereafter, upon the pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court has framed the following issues initially ꟷ 1. Whether there is cause of action for the suit? 2. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form and manner? 3. Whether the suit is barred by the law of Limitation? 4. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and mis- joinder? 5. Whether the plaintiff has right, title and interest over the suit land mentioned in the plaint of the suit? 6. Whether the Defendant is liable to be evicted from the suit land and the plaintiff is entitled to the khas possession of the suit land as mentioned in the suit? Page No.# 8/31 7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief as prayed for in the plaint? 8. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any other or further relief? After the amendment and filing of the additional written statement, the Court was pleased to frame the following additional issues ꟷ 9. Whether Achyut Das is in constant possession over the suit land through his authorized man Sri Saligram Sarma and thereafter through the present defendant to look after the suit land by executing a General Power of Attorney? 10. Whether the suit/cases filed by Sri Achyut Chandra Das in different courts in connection with the suit lands were dismissed on procedural technicalities or on merit? Thereafter, the learned Trial Court examined as many as 3 witnesses of the plaintiffs, who had also exhibited 15 documents and also examined 3 witnesses of the defendant who had exhibited 5 documents, and thereafter, hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for both the parties and also, considering the evidence so adduced by the parties, the learned Trial Court has decided the Issue No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 in affirmative in favour of the plaintiff; and Issue No. 10 is held to be redundant and thereafter, decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Being aggrieved, the defendant had preferred an appeal Page No.# 9/31 under Section 96 of the CPC, before the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Bongaigaon, and the learned First Appellate Court, after hearing the learned counsel for both the parties, vide impugned Judgment and Decree, dated 19.04.2011; affirmed the Judgment and Decree, dated 10.07.2009, passed by the learned Trial Court. 7. Being aggrieved, the defendant has preferred the present appeal, under Section 100 of the CPC, which was admitted for hearing on the following substantial questions of law ꟷ (a) Whether the certified copy of the sale deed Ext.'Ka' (Deed No. 950 dated 26.4.1969) and Ext. 'Kha' certified copy of the registered sale deed (Deed No.3273 dated 28.9.1969) were duly exhibited during trial without any objection. (b) If so, whether Ext. 'Ka' and 'Kha' are admissible in evidence in terms of the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872?” Submission of learned counsel for the appellant:- 8. Mr. A. C. Sarma, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that the learned First Appellate Court, in the impugned judgment, has not discussed the Issue No. 10, which was framed by the learned trial court. 8.1. Mr. Sarma also submits that though, the claim of the plaintiffs rest upon Exhibits 1 & 2, i.e., the original Sale Deeds; yet, contents of the same have not been proved. According to him mere marking of a document is not sufficient; the content of the same has to be proved by Page No.# 10/31 the plaintiffs. And none of the Courts below had considered this aspect of the matter. 8.2. Mr. Sarma further submits that Exhibit ‘Ka’ and Exhibit ‘Kha’, are two sale deeds which were exhibited by the defendants. And the said deeds were prepared from original copy, maintained by the Sub-Registrar and as such, and in spite of the same being secondary evidence, they are admissible in evidence in view of Section 74(2) of the Evidence Act. In support of his submissions, Mr. Sarma has referred to a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Appaiya Vs. Andimuthu @ Thangapandi And Others, reported in (2024) 19 SCC 602, especially in paragraph No. 32; which reads as under ꟷ “32. 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. A-1. 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. A-1, indisputably is the certified copy of Sale Deed No. 1209/1928 dated 27-8-1928 of SRO, Andipatti. In terms of Section 74(2) of the Evidence Act, its original falls 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. A-1 is Page No.# 11/31 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 Sections 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 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 there under 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. There is no Page No.# 12/31 case that foundation for letting in secondary evidence was not laid and as noted earlier, both the trial court and the first appellate court found it admissible in evidence. Thus, 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 Sale Deed No. 1209/1928 dated 27-8-1928 of SRO, Andipatti, produced as Ext. A-1 admissible in evidence for the purpose of proving the contents of the said original document. When this be the position in the light of the specific provisions referred hereinbefore under the Evidence Act and the Registration Act, we have no hesitation to hold that the finding of the High Court that the certified copy of Ext. A-1 owing to the failure in production of the original and proving through an independent witness is inadmissible in evidence, is legally unsustainable. In the other words, the acceptance of the admissibility of Ext. A-1 found in favour of the appellant-plaintiff by the trial court and confirmed by the first appellate court was perfectly in tune with the provisions referred hereinbefore and the High Court had committed an error in reversing the finding regarding the admissibility of Ext. A-1.” 8.3. Mr. Sarma also submits that in view of the aforesaid factual and legal position, the finding of the learned Trial Court and affirmed by the learned First Appellate Court in the impugned judgment suffers from perversity and it requires interference of this court. And under such circumstances, Mr. Sarma submits that the substantial questions of law, as framed at the time of admission of this appeal, are involved herein and accordingly, he has contended to allow this appeal by interfering with Page No.# 13/31 the impugned Judgment and Decree, passed by the learned First Appellate Court. Submission of learned counsel for the respondents:- 9. Per contra, Mr. D. Mozumdar, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents, submits that the defendant is the permissive occupier of the plaintiffs, and he was allowed to remain in the suit land under an agreement for a period of 3 years, and when the period of 3 years elapsed, the plaintiffs had asked the defendant to vacate the suit land and on refusal to vacate the same, the plaintiffs had instituted the suit. 9.1. Referring to Exhibit-2, Mr. Mozumdar submits that the same was executed by Radheshyam Agarwala and Radheshyam Agarwala was examined as PW-2 and he proved that he had purchased the suit land from one Sri Dudhnath Sarkar; and that the defendant has admitted the ownership of the land of Sri Dudhnath Sarkar. 9.2. Mr. Mozumdar also submits that the Exhibits ‘Ka’ and ‘Kha’ are certified copies of the Sale Deeds and the same are not admissible in evidence, as the same have failed to satisfy the requirements of Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. He further submits that unless it is established that original document is lost or destroyed or is being deliberately withheld by the party, secondary evidence in respect of that document cannot be accepted. In support of his submission, he has referred to a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rakesh Mohindra Vs. Anita Beri and Others, reported in (2016) 16 SCC 483. Referring to another decision in the case of U. Sree Vs. U. Page No.# 14/31 Srinivas, reported in (2013) 2 SCC 114, Mr. Mazumdar submits that mere admission of a document in evidence does not amount to proof. The courts are obligated to decide the question of admissibility of a document in secondary evidence before making endorsement thereon. Mr. Mazumdar has also referred to another decision of this Court in the case of Pinaki Prasad Biswas and Others Vs. Mandira Danda and Others, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine Gau 2377; to contend that a High Court has no jurisdiction in Second Appeal to interfere with the finding of fact and under such circumstances, he has contended to dismiss the appeal. 9.3. It is the further submission of Mr. Mozumdar that Section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act is not at all relevant and what is relevant in the present case is Section 65(c) of the Indian Evidence Act; and that DW-2, Sri Achyut Das, has admitted the same in his evidence. He also submits that though, the DW-2 had filed suit for declaration of right, title and interest, the same was dismissed for default and that DW-1 did not file counter-claim and under such circumstances, Mr. Mozumdar submits that there is no merit in this appeal and therefore, he has contended to dismiss the same. Consideration and Analysis:- 10. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for both the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the memo of appeal and the grounds mentioned therein; and the decisions referred to by the learned counsel for both the parties; and the impugned Judgment and Decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court and the Judgment Page No.# 15/31 and Decree, so passed by the learned Trial Court and also, the substantial questions of law framed by this Court. Also this court has gone through the decisions, referred by learned counsel for both the parties. 10.1. It appears that at the time of admission of the present appeal, two substantial questions of law were formulated. And both appear to be inter-related. And also both the substantial questions of law centered on Exhibit- ‘Ka’ and Exhibit- ‘Kha’. Therefore, discussions, in respect of both the substantial questions of law are to be directed together. Finding of the learned Trial Court in respect of Exhibit-‘Ka’ and ‘Kha’ :- 11. It appears that in respect of the Exhibits ‘Ka’ and ‘Kha’, i.e., the Deed No. 1950, dated 26.04.1969, and Deed No. 3273, dated 28.09.1969, respectively; the learned Trial Court has directed a discussion in Issue No. 5. The learned Trial Court has held that Exhibit ‘Ka’, which was exhibited by DW-1, is the true copy of the registered Sale Deed No. 1950, dated 26.04.1969, executed by Sri Dudhnath Sarkar in favour of Sri Prafulla Deb Choudhury, and Exhibit ‘Kha’ is the true copy of the registered Sale Deed No. 3273, dated 28.09. 1969, executed by Sri Prafulla Deb Choudhury in favour of Sri Achyut Das. 11.1. Thereafter, the learned Trial Court has discussed Section 62, concerning primary evidence; Section 63, concerning secondary evidence; Section 64, the requirement of proving the document by primary evidence and Section 65, where secondary evidence related to document may be given. Since, Exhibits ‘Ka’ and ‘Kha’, based on which, Page No.# 16/31 the defendant claimed his right, title, interest and possession over the suit land, are not the original documents and are the certified copies of the original documents; as such, Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act appears to be relevant here and this Court deems it necessary to extract the same herein below:- Section 65 - Cases in which secondary evidence relating to document may be given. Secondary evidence may be given of the existence, condition or contents of a document, in the following cases :- (a) When the original is shown or appears to be in the possession or power- of the person against whom the document is sought to be proved, or of any person out of reach of or not subject to, the process of the court, or of any person legally bound to produce it, and when, after the notice mentioned in Section 66, such person does not produce it; (b) When the existence, condition or contents of the original have been proved to be admitted in writing by the person against whom it is proved or by his representative in interest; (c) When the original has been destroyed or lost, or when, the party offering evidence of its contents cannot, for any other reason not arising from his Page No.# 17/31 own default or neglect, produce it in reasonable time; (d) When the original is of such a nature as not to be easily movable; (e) When the original is a public document within the meaning of section 74; (f) When the original is a document of which a certified copy is permitted by this Act, or by any other law in force in India to be given in evidence; (g) When the originals consist of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot conveniently be examined in court and the fact to be proved is the general result of the whole collection. 11.2. In case of (a), (c) and (d), any secondary evidence of the contents of the document is admissible. In case of (b), the written admission is admissible. In case of (e) & (f), a certified copy of the document, but no other kind of secondary evidence, is admissible. In case of (g), evidence may be given as to the general result of the documents by any person who has examined them and who is skilled in the examination of such documents. 11.3. Thereafter, the learned Trial Court, having gone through the exhibits, recorded a finding that the entire case of the the plaintiff and the defendant rests on Exhibit-1, the original Registered Sale Deed No. Page No.# 18/31 1399, dated 14.12.1990, in the name of Sri Radheshyam Agarwala; Exhibit-2, the original Registered Sale Deed No. 614, dated 17.08.1994, in the name of Biswajit Singha; Exhibit-‘Ka’, the true copy of the Registered Sale Deed No. 1950, dated 26.04.1969, executed by Sri Dudhnath Sarkar in favour of Sri Prafulla Deb Choudhury & Exhibit-‘Kha’, the true copy of the Registered Sale Deed No. 3273, dated 28.09.1963, executed by Sri Prafulla Deb Choudhury in favour of Sri Achyut Das. 11.4. The learned Trial Court further went on to observe that the Exhibit-‘Ka’ and Exhibit-‘Kha’, which are exhibited by the defendant, are secondary evidence of the contents of the original Sale Deeds and in view of the provisions of Sections 64 and 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, secondary evidence of a document can only be given when it is shown that any one of the conditions mentioned in Section 65 fulfilled. 11.5. Further, the learned Trial Court has observed that after careful scrutiny of the evidence of the defendant, it is found that not a single piece of evidence was given on behalf of the defendant showing fulfillment of any of the conditions mentioned in Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and accordingly, it has held that Exhibit-‘Ka’ and Exhibit-‘Kha’ are inadmissible as evidence. Finding of the learned first appellate court:- 12. The learned first appellate court, in the impugned judgment had recorded the finding as under:- “On the other hand, the defendant though failed to prove the fact that he had not entered into the agreement, Ext-11 with plaintiff, but he stated another story in respect of the right, title and interest of the suit land. In Page No.# 19/31 support of his statement, he examined himself as DW 1 and said Achyut Ch. Das as DW 2, and Smti. Sabitri Devi as DW 3, and he exhibited some documents i.e. Ext – ‘Ka’ the true copy of regd. Sale Deed No. 1950, dtd. 26.4.69, executed by Sri Dudhnath Sarkar in favour of Sri Prafulla Deb Choudhury, Ext- ‘Kha’ the true copy of the Regd. sale deed no. 3273 dtd. 28.9.63 executed by Sri Prafulla Deb Choudhury in favour of Sri Achyut Das, Ext-‘Ga’ the General Power of Attorney given by Sri Achyut Chandra Das in the name of defendant, Ext- ‘Gha’ certified copy of the voter list issued by Election Registration Officer, Ext- ‘Unga’ the electricity bill in the name of the defendant.” 12.1. Thereafter, the learned First Appellate Court held that in respect of the evidence adduced and the documents submitted by both parties, the learned Court below had elaborately discussed in Issue No. 5, as per provision of Evidence Act and arrived at a right decision, and it found no force in the argument of the learned counsel of appellant that the learned Court below wrongly decided this issue and arrived at a wrong finding. Thereafter, the learned First Appellate Court had decided the Issue No. 5 in affirmative in favour of the plaintiff. Finding of this court:- 13. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and also having gone through the relevant provisions of law and also the decision cited at the bar, this court finds substance in the submission of Mr. Sarma, learned counsel for the appellants. Further this court finds that the decision, Appaiya(supra), so referred by him also strengthened his submission. Page No.# 20/31 13.1. It is well settled in the case of Appaiya(supra), that the original sale deed itself is generally a private document (executed between the private parties). But, the registered copy / entry in the registration records maintained by the Sub-Registrar, is a public document under Section 74(2) of the Indian Evidence Act (public records kept of private documents). 13.2. It is to be noted here that Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act defines public documents as: Public documents. The following documents are public documents:- (1) Documents forming the acts or records of the acts – (i) of the sovereign authority; (ii) of official bodies and tribunals; and (iii) of public officers, legislative, judicial and executive, [of any part of India or of the Commonwealth] [The original words "whether of British India, or of any other part of Her Majesty's dominions" have successively been amended by A.O. 1948 and A.O. 1950 to read as above.], or of a foreign country; (2) public records kept [in any State] [Substituted by A.O. 1950, for "in any Province".] of private documents. 13.3. Thus, from the definition itself it becomes apparent that public Page No.# 21/31 documents are those documents:- (i) that forming acts/records of sovereign authority, official bodies, tribunals, etc. (ii) Public records kept in any state of private documents. 13.4. And the registered sale deeds, in view of aforesaid discussion and also in view of the ratio laid down in the case of Appaiya(supra), fall under the second category. In the said case Hon’ble Supreme Court explicitly addressed the interplay between Section 65(e) and Section 74(2), confirming that for public documents (including registration records of private deeds), Section 65(e) stands independently. It dispenses with the foundational requirements of the other clauses of Section 65. In the said case the rejection of the certified copy by the High Court was set aside, and the trial court’s decree (relying on the certified copy) was restored. In view of the above discussion, this Court afraid the argument advanced by Mr. Mazumdar cannot be accepted and the decision in Rakesh Mohindra (supra) and also in U. Sree (supra), would not come into his assistance. 13.5. The certified copy, issued by the registration department is treated as a public document and can be produced as secondary evidence, (without needing the original). Section 77, also provides that certified copies of public documents may be produced as proof of their contents and Section 79, which provides for presumption as to genuineness of certified copies and Section 57(5) of the Registration Act, 1908, which provides that certified copies given under the Act are admissible to prove the contents of the original. Page No.# 22/31 13.6. Reference in this context can be made also to a decision of Privy Council in Gopal Das v. Sri Thakurji, reported in AIR 1943 PC 83, wherein it has been held that the sale deed itself is not a public document, but the entry in the register book is. 13.7. Reference may also be made to another decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Madamanchi Ramappa vs. Muthalur Bojjappa, reported in AIR 1963 SC 1633, wherein also it has been held that certified copies of public documents under Section 65(e) do not require the same procedural hurdles as other secondary evidence. 13.8. Thus, drawing premises from the aforesaid discussion, it can now be logically concluded that the Exhibit-‘Ka’ and ‘Kha’, having been prepared as certified copy from the registered copy/entry in the registration records maintained by the Sub-Registrar, qualifies as public document under Section 74(2) of the Indian Evidence Act (public records kept of private documents), are admissible as secondary evidence, without needing to explain the non-production of the original in the manner required for non-public documents in view of Section 65(e) of the Evidence Act, which dispense with the ordinary foundational requirements (loss, notice etc.) for admitting certified copies of such public record as secondary evidence. 13.9. 13.9. In view of aforesaid discussion and finding the second substantial question of law No.2, as formulate herein above, though appears to be flows out of the impugned Judgment and Decree, and the same has to be answered in affirmative by holding that Ext. 'Ka' and 'Kha' are secondary evidence are admissible as secondary evidence. In that view Page No.# 23/31 of the matter, the finding of the learned trial court and affirmed by the learned first appellate court, appears to be contrary to the provision of law and as such the same failed to withstand the legal scrutiny and requires interference of this court. 13.10. Further, from the record of the learned court below and also from the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, it becomes apparent that the certified copy of the sale deed Exhibit -'Ka' (Deed No. 1950 dated 26.4.1969) and Exhibit- 'Kha', certified copy of the registered sale deed (Deed No. 3273 dated 28.9.1969) were exhibited during trial without any objection. But, in fact the first substantial question of law appears to be not a substantial question of law, rather it appears to be a question of fact. Effect of acceptance of Exhibit-‘Ka’ and ‘Kha’ as secondary evidence upon the outcome of the suit: 14. From the contentions made by the parties and also from the materials on the record and also from the impugned judgment of the learned First Appellate Court as well as the learned Trial Court, it becomes apparent that the entire case of the plaintiff rests on exhibits i.e. Exthibit-1, the original Registered Sale Deed No. 1399, dated 14/12/90, in the name of Sri Radheshyam Agarwala, and Exhibit-2, the original Registered Sale Deed No.614, dated 17/8/94 in the name of Biswajit Singha. 14.1. Further it is apparent that the case of defendant rests upon Exthibit –‘Ka’- the true copy of the registered Sale Deed No.1950, dated 26.04.1969, executed by Sri Budhnath Sarker in favour of Sri Prafulls Deb Page No.# 24/31 Choudhury, and Exhibit – ‘Kha’, the true copy of the registered Sale Deed No. 3273, dated 28.09.1969, executed by Sri Prafulla Web Choudhury in favour of Sri Achyut Das. And indisputably, Exhibit- ‘Ka’ and Exhibit- ‘Kha’, which are exhibited by the defendant, are secondary evidence of the contents of the original Sale Deeds. 14.2. It is also well settled that even if Exhibit- ‘Ka’ and Exhibit- ‘Kha’, so exhibited by the defendant, are held to be secondary evidence of the contents of the original Sale Deeds, and as such Exhibit- ‘Ka’ and Exhibit- ‘Kha’, admissible as secondary evidence without needing to satisfy the conditions of Section 65 of the Evidence Act. (accounting for non-production of the original), in view of Section 65(e) of the Evidence Act. The Best Evidence Rule: - 14.3. The "Best Evidence Rule" is a foundational principle in the law of evidence, which requires parties to produce the best available evidence, which for documents is the original (primary evidence).It is well settled that when dealing with documentary evidence, primary evidence is considered the best evidence. Primary Evidence (Section 62), means the original document itself. It is the highest and most reliable form of proof of the contents of a document. Primary Evidence is considered the best evidence, as it reduces the risk of tampering, forgery, or mistakes in copying. The courts prefer it because it provides direct proof of the document’s contents without intermediaries. If secondary evidence is produced without sufficient reason, the court may reject it or give it lesser weight. Page No.# 25/31 14.4. Reference in this context can be made to a recent decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tharammel Peethambaran & Anr. vs. T. Ushakrishnan & Anr. (2026 INSC 134), wherein following principles are laid down:- (I) Primary evidence is the rule; secondary evidence is an exception. (II) Section 64 mandates that documents must be proved by primary evidence (the original document itself), which is considered the “best evidence”. (III) A party must produce the best evidence available. So long as the original is within reach, inferior proof (secondary evidence like photocopies) cannot be introduced. (IV) Secondary evidence (e.g., notarised photocopy of a Power of Attorney) is inadmissible unless the party first satisfies the conditions of Section 65 (accounting for non- production of the original). (V) Mere production of a photocopy, without laying a proper foundation, carries no evidentiary value. 14.5. In the aforesaid case Hon’ble Supreme Court has invalidated sale deeds, executed on the basis of a notarised photocopy, because the procedural preconditions for secondary evidence were not met. 14.6. And the Exhibit-1 and Exhibit-2, the Sale Deeds of the plaintiffs’ and Exhibit-‘Ka’ and Exhibit- ‘Kha’ the Sale Deeds of the defendants when Page No.# 26/31 placed in juxtaposition; it has been found that the preponderance of probability is found in favour of Exhibit-1 and Exhibi-2, which are original copies of the two Sale Deeds and contents of the same have duly been proved as per Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The balance is found to be tilted in favour of the plaintiffs’ for the simple reason that Exhibit-1 and 2 are admissible as primary evidence, bearing more weight in the view of relevant provisions of Evidence Act, than that of the Exhibit-‘Ka’ and Exhibit ‘Kha’, which are admissible as secondary evidence. 14.7. Further, the record reveals that Sri Dudhnath Sarkar, vide Exhibit- 1, sold a plot of land, measuring 2 Kathas 7 Lechas, out of his share, covered by Khatian No.45 of Dag No.121 of Village Bhakarapara Part - I, under Bongaigaon Revenue Circle, that corresponds to the suit land, as described in the schedule of the plaint, to Sri Radheshyam Agarwala, on 14/12/90, and handed over the possession to him, factum of which is substantiated by Exhibit -4, a land holding certificate issued by the A.S.O. Bongaigaon, in the name of Sri Radheshyam Agarwala in respect of the suit land on 18/12/91. And thereafter, the said plot of land was sold by Sri Radheshyam Agarwala, to Late Biswajit Singha through Exhibit-2 and delivered possession to him. It is also apparent that after the said transaction, a kutcha patta was issued in the name of Late Biswajit Singha and his name was entered in the record of rights, which was proved by Exhibit -3 and Exhibit -6. Thereafter, on account of death of Biswajit Singha, the name of the Smti. Krishna Singha, the plaintiff No.1, was entered in the record of rights as the legal heir of deceased Biswajit Singha and this fact is apparent from Exhibit -7 and Exhibit -9. Page No.# 27/31 14.8 It is also apparent that Exhibit ‘Ka’- is the true copy of the registered Sale Deed No.1950, dated 26/4/69, executed by Sri Dudhnath Sarkar in favour of Sri Prafulla Deb Choudhury, and Exhibit-‘Kha’- is the true copy of the registered Sale Deed No. 3273 dated 28/9/69, executed by Sri Prafulla Deb Choudhury in favour of Sri Achyut Das. In disputably, Exhibit- ‘Ka’ and Exhibit- ‘Kha’, so exhibited by the defendant, are secondary evidence of the contents of the original Sale Deeds. 14.9 Moreover, title of the Shri Achyut Das over the suit land also could not be established. Though Sri Achyut Chandra Das had filed a Title Suit, in respect of the suit land against the plaintiffs, being T.S. No.10/1995, before the Court of learned District Judge, Bongaigaon, which was dismissed on 07.02.1998, for default. Thereafter, Sri Achyut Chandra Das had filed a revision under Order 9 Rule 9, read with Section 151 of C.P.C., upon which, Misc.(J) Case No. 31/1998, was registered before the Court of the learned District Judge, Bongaigaon. The said Misc. (J) Case was subsequently transferred to the learned Civil Judge, Bongaigaon, and thereafter, the same was renumbered as Misc. (J) Case No. 14/1999, and the same was dismissed on 18.08.1999, for non production of witnesses by the petitioner. Thereafter, said Sri Achyut Chandra Das had filed a petition under Section 151 of C.P.C., being Misc. (J) Case No. 36/2001, before the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Bongaigaon, which was also dismissed on 13.09.2001. Thus Sri Achyut Chandra Das could not establish his right, title, interest and possession over the suit land. 14.10. Though, Mr. Sarma, learned Senior counsel for the appellant submits that the contents of the Exhibit 1 & Exhibit 2 are not proved by the plaintiffs and this aspect eschewed consideration of both the Courts Page No.# 28/31 below, yet, his submission left this Court unimpressed. It worth mentioning in this context that there is concurrent finding of facts by both the Courts below, and the same is binding upon this Court. Reference in this context can be made to the following decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court:- (i) In Thiagarajan and Others v. Sri Venugopalaswamy B. Koil and Others, reported in [(2004) 5 SCC 762] Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the High Court in its jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC was not justified in interfering with the findings of fact. The Court observed that to say the least the approach of the High Court was not proper. It is the obligation of the courts of law to further the clear intendment of the legislature and not frustrate it by excluding the same. This Court in a catena of decisions held that where findings of fact by the lower appellate court are based on evidence, the High Court in second appeal cannot substitute its own findings on re-appreciation of evidence merely on the ground that another view was possible. In the same case, Hon’ble Supreme Court has also observed that in a case where special leave petition was filed against a judgment of the High Court interfering with findings of fact of the lower appellate court. This Court observed that to say the least the approach of the High Court was not proper. It is the obligation of the courts of law to further the clear intendment of the legislature and not frustrate Page No.# 29/31 it by excluding the same. This Court further observed that the High Court in second appeal cannot substitute its own findings on reappreciation of evidence merely on the ground that another view was possible. (ii) Hon’ble Supreme Court has again reminded the High Court in Commr., Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments vs. P. Shanmugama and Others, reported in [(2005) 9 SCC 232] that the High Court has no jurisdiction in second appeal to interfere with the finding of facts. (iii) Again, Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Kerala & Another v. Mohd. Kunhi (DEAD) by LRS and Others, reported in [(2005) 10 SCC 139] has reiterated the same principle that the High Court is not justified in interfering with the concurrent findings of fact. This Court observed that, in doing so, the High Court has gone beyond the scope of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (iii) Again, in the case of Madhavan Nair vs. Bhaskar Pillai (DEAD) by LRS, reported in [(2005) 10 SCC 553] this Court observed that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the concurrent findings of fact. This Court observed that it is well settled that even if the first appellate court commits an error in recording a finding of fact, that itself will not be a ground for the High Court to upset the same. 14.11. Moreover, the said issue was never raised either before the learned Trial Court or before the learned First Appellate Court; and for Page No.# 30/31 the first time, he has raised the issue before this Court and besides, no substantial question of law is framed on this point. 14.12. It is well settled in the case of Panchugopal Barua & Ors vs. Umesh Chandra Goswami & Ors. reported in (1997) 4 SCC 713, that in second appeal, no new grounds can be taken. Further, it is well settled that in second appeal, this Court has to confine its discussion only in respect of the substantial question of law, so framed by the Court and this court is not entitled to appreciate the facts in second appeal. Mr. Mozumdar, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents has rightly pointed this out, based upon the decision of this Court in Pinaki Prasad Biswas (Supra). Mr. Mozumdar, has also argued with vehemence that the aforesaid finding of the learned Trial Court as well as of the learned First Appellate Court, suffers from no illegality or irregularity, requiring any interference of this Court. There appears to be substance in the same, and therefore, this court is inclined to record concurrence to the same. Conclusion:- 15. Accordingly, this court finds that the substantial question of law No. (a) is not a substantial question of law, rather it is a pure question of fact, and it has to be answered as such. 15.1. And further, substantial question of law No. (b), i.e., whether Ext. 'Ka' and 'Kha' are admissible in evidence in terms of the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 though appears to flow out of the impugned judgment and decree of the learned First Appellate Court, the same has to be answered in affirmative. And accordingly, the same stands Page No.# 31/31 answered. However, in view of the fact that Exhibit 1 and Exhibit-2, being the primary evidence, the preponderance of probability has to be found in favour of the plaintiff. 16. In the result, this court finds no merit in this regular second appeal. And accordingly, the same stands dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 17. The registry shall send down the records of the learned courts below forthwith. JUDGE Comparing Assistant