The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that the registered adoption deed cannot be assumed as a public document and therefore cannot be marked as an exhibit without formal proof. This decision highlights the necessity of establishing foundational facts for marking documents as secondary evidence under Section 65 of the Evidence Act, correcting a significant legal error made by the lower court in its earlier assumption.
Brief Facts:
In this case in a property dispute, the plaintiffs acquired properties from Binod and Kedar Mandal, whose widows later executed adoption deeds and transferred the property to the adopted son, challenged as illegal by the plaintiffs. The lower court allowed these deeds as evidence, considering them public documents. In the instant petition, the plaintiffs have challenged this, arguing that the deeds are private documents requiring formal proof and foundational facts for secondary evidence, as per Section 65 of the Evidence Act.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The petitioner’s learned counsel contended that the lower court wrongly assumed the certified copies of the registered adoption deeds to be public documents, which did not require formal proof for their execution. He argued that these documents are actually private and necessitate foundational facts for admitting secondary evidence, as mandated by Section 65 of the Evidence Act. The learned counsel asserted that the lower court's decision to admit these documents without the necessary foundational proof was a significant legal error, prompting him to seek a reversal of this judgment.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel for the defendant in this case opposed the plaintiff’s contentions. He argued that the adoption deeds were valid and legally executed. The learned counsel asserted that the registered adoption deeds, being public documents, did not require formal proof of their execution. The counsel argued that there was no illegality or infirmity in the lower court's order allowing the adoption deeds as evidence, and thus, the plaintiff’s challenge should not be sustained.
Observations of the Court:
The court observed that the main question was whether a registered adoption deed is a public document and whether it can be admitted as evidence without laying a foundation for secondary evidence as per Section 65 of the Evidence Act.
The court referred to the judgments in Rekha Rana Versus Ratnashree Jain and Mangal Das Oraon & Ors. Vs. Ladhu Oraon & Ors. for legal precedents. These cases emphasized the distinction between public and private documents and the requirements for admitting them as evidence. The court on the basis of the legal precedent concluded that the lower court had erred in assuming the registered adoption deed to be a public document and admitted it without formal proof or foundational facts.
The decision of the Court:
The court allowed the writ petition.
Case Title: Chandan Mandal vs. Lakhikant Mandal and Others
Coram: Hon’ble Mr Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
Case No.: C.M.P No. 353 of 2022
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Nitya Nand Pd. Choudhary
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
