C. DODDANARAYANA REDDY (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS. versus C. JAYARAMA REDDY (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS.

Citation: [2020] 1 S.C.R. 627 · Decided: 14-02-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. ABDUL NAZEER · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
627
C. DODDANARAYANA REDDY (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS.
v.
C. JAYARAMA REDDY (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 2165 of 2009)
FEBRUARY 14, 2020
[S. ABDUL NAZEER AND HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Evidence Act, 1872: s.35 – Entry recording date of birth in
school register – Suit for partition and separate possession of share
in suit property based on claim that plaintiff was minor at the time
of death of his father in 1963 and that he continued as a member of
joint Hindu family – To prove that he was minor, plaintiff produced
school leaving certificate – Trial court dismissed the suit accepting
the case of defendant that in 1963, plaintiff demanded and wished
to separate himself from the joint Hindu family and executed a
release deed and severed all connections with joint Hindu family
after receiving Rs.5000 for his share and relinquished all his rights
in the family and started staying at his in- laws house – Trial court
did not rely on the date of birth of plaintiff mentioned in the school
leaving certificate as the same was not put by the head master of
the school nor the head master was examined to prove the contents
of the certificate – First appellate court upheld the order of trial
court – High Court returned a finding that the plaintiff was minor
and school leaving certificate was admissible as proof of age under
s.35 of the Evidence Act and that since the plaintiff was minor on
the date when the release deed was executed in 1963, therefore,
such deed was null and void – On appeal, held: The plaintiff
produced photocopy of the certificate on the records of appeal –
Such certificate did not show that it was certified copy of a public
document as contemplated by s.76 of the Act – The person who
recorded the date of birth in the school register was also not
examined – No official from the school nor any person proved the
signatures of his father on such certificate – Apart from the self-
serving statement, there was no evidence to show that the entry of
the date of birth was made by the official in-charge, which alone
would make it admissible as evidence under s.35 of the Evidence
Act – The fact that plaintiff left village and stayed in the house of
   [2020] 1 S.C.R. 627
627
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
628
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
his father-in-law was admitted by him when he appeared as PW- 1 –
The onus was on the plaintiff to prove that he was a minor at the
time of execution of release deed which he failed to prove and,
therefore, his suit was rightly dismissed by the trial court and the
first appellate court – High Court committed a grave error in
interfering in the second appeal by merely taking a different view
on the basis of same evidence on the basis of which both the trial
court as well as first appellate court held that plaintiff has failed to
prove his date of birth – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.100.
Evidence Act, 1872: s.76 – Public document – Held: s.76 of
the Act gives a right to any person to demand a copy of a public
document on payment of a fee together with the certificate written
at the foot of such copy that it is a true copy of such document –
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.
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: s.100 – Second appeal, scope
of interference – When any concurrent finding of fact is assailed in
second appeal, the appellant is entitled to point out that it is bad in
law because it was recorded de hors the pleadings or it was based
on no evidence or it was based on misreading of material
documentary evidence or it was recorded against any provision of
law and lastly, the decision is one which no Judge acting judicially
could reasonably have reached.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The public document in terms of Section 74 of
the Evidence Act, 1872 includes the documents forming records
of official bodies or tribunals. Section 76 of the said Act gives a
right to any person to demand a copy of a public document on
payment of a fee together with the certificate written at the foot
of such copy that it is a true copy of such document. 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. The plaintiff has produced photocopy of the
Certificate on the records of this appeal. Such Certificate does
not show that it is said to be a certified copy of a public docume

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.