APPAIYA versus ANDIMUTHU @ THANGAPANDI & ORS.

Citation: [2023] 12 S.C.R. 525 · Decided: 20-09-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 12 S.C.R. 525 : 2023 INSC 835
525
CASE DETAILS
APPAIYA
v.
ANDIMUTHU @ THANGAPANDI & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 14630 of 2015)
SEPTEMBER 20, 2023
[B.R. GAVAI AND C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: Whether the High Court was correct in 
holding that owing to the non-production of any document by appellant 
evincing as to how the sons’ of the seller obtained the suit property in a 
partition Exhibit A1-registered sale deed whereby the property was sold to 
the appellant’s vendor, being a registration copy-secondary evidence, could 
not be admitted in evidence as proof of the contents of its original.
Evidence Act, 1872 – s. 65(e), 74, 76, 77 and 79 – Registration Act, 
1908 – s. 57(5) – Admissibility in evidence of certiﬁ ed copies in property 
matters – Certiﬁ ed copy of the sale deed executed in favour of appellant’s 
vendor-Exhibit A-1, produced by the appellant, if admissible in evidence 
for the purpose of proving the contents of its original document:
Held: Certiﬁ ed 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 u/s. 74(2) of the Evidence 
Act and 75(5) thereof, makes it admissible in evidence for proving the 
contents of its original – Thus, the cumulative eﬀ ect of the provisions 
of the Evidence Act and s. 57(5) of the Registration Act would make 
the certiﬁ ed copy of the sale deed produced as Ext.A1 admissible in 
evidence for the purpose of proving the contents of the said original 
document – Thus, the ﬁ nding of the High Court that the certiﬁ ed copy 
of Ext.A1 owing to the failure in production of the original and proving 
through an independent witness is inadmissible in evidence, is legally 
unsustainable – Acceptance of the admissibility of Ext.A1 found in favour 
526
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 12 S.C.R.
of the appellant by the trial court and conﬁ rmed by the appellate court 
was in tune with the provisions – Once the title of appellant’s vendor 
acquired under Ext.A1 sale deed is established and purchase of the same 
property by the appellant, under Ext.A5 registered sale deed is upheld 
by the High Court there was no reason or justiﬁ cation to interfere with 
the concurrent judgments of the courts below – Since sale deed legally 
establishes the contents of the original sale deed the same should confer 
the right over the entire property to the appellant – Thus, no ground to 
sustain the reversal of the concurrent judgments of the courts below 
by the High Court in exercise of the power u/s. 100 CPC, as no ground 
justifying such exercise exists – Judgment of the High Court is set aside 
and that of the appellate court conﬁ rming the judgment and decree of the 
trial court is restored – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s. 100. [Paras 
21, 29, 33 and 34]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao & Anr. (1999) 3 SCC 573:[1999] 1 SCR 
1168; Yadarao Dajiba Shrawane (D) by LRS v. Nanilal Harakchand 
Shah (D) & Ors. (2002) 6 SCC 404; Lankeshwar Malakar v. R. Deka
(2006) 13 SCC 570: [2006] 9 Suppl. SCR 895; Santosh Hazari v. 
Purushottam Tiwari (2001) 3 SCC 179:[2001] 1 SCR 948; SK. Bhikan v. 
Mehamoodabee (2017) 5 SCC 127:[2017] 1 SCR 841; R. Nainar Pillai 
and Anr. v. Subbiah Pillai 2007 SCC OnLine Mad 457/ (2008) 3 Mad 
LJ 219 – referred to. 
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED 
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.14630 of 
2015.
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.10.2012 of the High Court of 
Madras at Madurai in SAMD No.802 of 2004.
Appearances:
S. Mahendran, Adv. for the Appellant.
M. P. Parthiban, T. R. B. Sivakumar, Advs. for the Respondents.
527
JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
JUDGMENT
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
1. The captioned appeal by special leave is directed against the 
judgment dated 17.10.2012 passed by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High 
Court in Second Appeal (MD) No. 802 of 2004 whereby and whereunder 
it reversed the concurrent judgments of the courts below decreeing the suit 
with regard to the title and possession of the entire suit property and conﬁ ned 
the plaintiﬀ ’s (appellant herein), entitlement to title and possession to 96 
cents purchased under Ext. A5 sale deed. To be precise, as per the judgment 
impugned, the judgment dated 03.07.2001 in A.S.No.65/97 of the Sub-Court, 
Periyankulam conﬁ rming the judgment and decree dated 30.09.1997 in 
O.S.No.104/96 of the District M
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.