Appaiya vs. Andimuthu @ Thangapandi & Ors. (2023 INSC 835)
Background
The appellant sued to be declared the exclusive owner of roughly 2 acres 61 cents of land, tracing his title through a 1928 sale deed to one Puliyankaladi and a subsequent 1963 sale deed by which Puliyankaladi sold the same property to the appellant's father. Both the trial court and the first appellate court found in the appellant's favor and decreed the entire property to him, but the Madras High Court (Madurai Bench), in a second appeal filed by the defendants, reversed these concurrent findings and held the appellant entitled to only 96 cents, reasoning that the 1928 sale deed was merely a certified/registration copy (not the original) and so could not be relied upon without independent corroborating proof.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that a High Court can interfere with concurrent findings of fact in a second appeal only on limited, well-defined grounds (e.g., findings that are perverse or based on no evidence) after framing a genuine "substantial question of law": mere re-appreciation of evidence is not permitted. On the merits, the Court held the High Court erred in treating the certified copy of the 1928 registered sale deed as inadmissible: since the original was a public document, Sections 65(e), 74, 77 and 79 of the Evidence Act, read with Section 57(5) of the Registration Act, make a certified copy of a registered document admissible secondary evidence of its contents without requiring the original or independent corroborating witnesses. Since the deed's execution was never actually disputed and both the 1928 and 1963 sale deeds covered the same full extent of land (2 acres 61 cents), there was no legal basis to cut down the appellant's title to only 96 cents. The Supreme Court therefore set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the concurrent decrees of the trial court and first appellate court granting the appellant full title and possession.
Lesson Learnt
A certified copy of a registered sale deed is valid secondary evidence of its contents under the Evidence Act and Registration Act: a court cannot reject it merely because the original was not produced or an independent witness did not corroborate it, especially where its execution was never actually disputed.