JASWANT SINGH versus GURDEV SINGH & ORS.

Citation: [2011] 15 S.C.R. 282 · Decided: 21-10-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2011) 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 282 
JASWANT SINGH 
v. 
GURDEV SINGH & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 8879-80 of 2011) 
OCTOBER 21, 2011 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.] 
Evidence Act, 1872 - ss. 7 4, 76, 77 and 78 - Compromise 
Decree - Admissibility of - Held: Compromise Decree is a 
C public document in terms of s. 7 4 - Certified copy of public 
document prepared uls. 76 is admissible in evidence uls. 77 
- A certified copy of a public document is admissible in 
evidence without being proved by calling witness - In the 
instant case, a decree was passed and drafted in the light of 
o the compromise entered into between the parties and a 
certified copy of such document was produced before the 
Court, hence, there was presumption as to genuineness of 
such certified copy u/s. 78 - The compromise had merged into 
a decree and had become part and parcel of it - Judgment 
E and decree passed by lower appellate Court as affirmed by 
High Court was based upon proper appreciation of the terms 
of compromise - Thus, interference by Supreme Court not 
called for. 
The appellant had earlier filed a suit for permanent 
F injunction alleging himself to be in possession as a co-
sharer of the suit land. In the said suit, the parties entered 
into a compromise and on the basis of the said 
compromise dated 27.11.1972, a decree was passed on 
08.12.1972. 
G 
Subsequently, the appellant filed a civil suit for 
declaration to the effect that he was the ewner and in 
. possession of land situated in village Simbli, Tehsil and 
District Hoshiarpur and for correction of the revenue 
H 
282 
JASWANT SINGH v. GURDEV SINGH & ORS. 
283 
entries in the Jamabandi Register wherein the A 
respondents had been wrongly shown to be the owners. 
Respondent No. 1 too filed a civil suit in the same Court. 
The trial court decreed the suit filed by appellant and 
dismissed the suit filed by respondent No.1. Respondent 
No.1 filed appeal before the District Judge who allowed B 
the same to an extent in view of the said compromise 
dated 27.11.1972. The order was upheld by the High 
Court. 
In the instant appeals interpretation of the said 
compromise dated 27.11.1972 was in dispute. 
C 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD:1. It is seen that based on the terms arrived at 
in the compromise and the decree dated 08.12.1972, the 
mutation of the land situated in village Simbli was D 
sanctioned. Even though the appellant raised an 
objection as to the compromise dated 27.11.1972, (Ex.D3), 
admittedly, the same has not been challenged by him 
either in his plaint or in the suit filed by him or in the 
wsitten statement filed in the suit. by the defendant-
E 
Respondent no.1. The compromise dated 27.11.1972 was 
not challenged by the appellant rather it can be said that 
he also relied upon it because the decree upon which he 
claims ownership, has been passed only on the basis of 
this compromise dated 27.11.1992 (Ex. D3). [Para 8] [288-
F 
E-G; 289-A-B] 
2. The compromise dated 27.11.1972 became the 
basis of the decree dated 08.12.1972 passed by the Sub-
Judge, Hoshlarpur. As rightly observed by the courts 
below, the compromise merged into a decree· and G 
became part and parcel of it. To put it clear, the 
compromise had become a part of the decree which was 
passed by the court of Sub-Judge 1st Class, Jloshiarpur. 
Hence, It was a public document in terms of. Section 74 
of the Evidence Act, 1872 and certified copy of the public H 
284 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A 
document prepared under Section 76 of the Act is 
admissible in evidence under Section 77 of the sai~ Act. 
A certified copy of a public document is admissible in 
evidence without being proved by calling witness. 
Inasmuch as the decree was passed and drafted in the 
B 
light of the compromise entered into between the parties, 
viz. the plaintiff and the defendants, and a certified copy 
of such document was produced before the Court, there 
is presumption as to the genuineness of such certified 
copy under Section 78 of the Act The appellant did not 
c challenge the genuineness of certified copy in any 
manner. Although the record of the Court was proved to 
be burnt in a fire in Judicial Record Room, Hoshiarpur 
on 16.06.1998, but the certified copy of the compromise 
(Ex.03), which is the part of the decree was obtained 
0 
from the record room on 24.08.1988 and the Decree 
Ex.04 was got issued on 12.09.1984. In those 
circumstances, there is no reason to d

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