Execution Of Sale Deed Must Be Proved By Witnesses Or Parties Before Being Marked As Exhibit In Trial: Jharkhand High Court
The Jharkhand High Court has held that while a sale deed is initially a private document, it becomes a public document upon registration with the Registrar. However, for the sale deed to be marked as exhibited in a trial, its execution must be proven by witnesses or parties involved in the sale deed.Justice Subhash Chand presiding over the case observed, “The sale deed is the private...
The Jharkhand High Court has held that while a sale deed is initially a private document, it becomes a public document upon registration with the Registrar. However, for the sale deed to be marked as exhibited in a trial, its execution must be proven by witnesses or parties involved in the sale deed.
Justice Subhash Chand presiding over the case observed, “The sale deed is the private documents though after registration in the office of Registrar it become public document. But unless and until the execution of the sale deed is proved by the witnesses of the sale deed or the parties to the sale deed the exhibit on the same cannot be marked.”
In this case, the plaintiff filed a suit for partition against the defendants. Defendant No. 6 submitted an application under Order-1 Rule-10 of the CPC within the partition suit, which was allowed by the trial court, resulting in Defendant No. 6 being added to the case.
Subsequently, at the argument stage, the Plaintiff filed an application to mark the sale deeds as exhibited, which was approved by the trial court. Defendant No. 6 then filed an application to cross-examine the witnesses, including the Plaintiff. However, the trial court rejected Defendant No. 6's application. Aggrieved by this decision, Defendant No. 6 filed the writ petition.
The Petitioner argued that since the trial court allowed the plaintiff to present the certified copies of the sale deeds as public documents, the defendant should have been given the opportunity to cross-examine. The trial court's rejection of the application, therefore, deprived the defendant of their right to cross-examine the witnesses.
The Court noted that the defendant filed an application to cross-examine in regard to the sale deed to ascertain the veracity of those sale deeds.
“On behalf of the defendant the application was given with a view to cross-examine in regard to the sale deed just to ascertain the veracity of those sale deeds. Learned trial court by rejecting the application of the defendant no.6 who is petitioner herein has deprived him, the opportunity to cross-examine the witness of plaintiff and plaintiff himself in regard to the sale deed which would ultimately affects the merits of the case reason being this plea has been taken by the defendant no.6 in his written statement that the property in suit has already been partitioned by way of settlement among the co-sharers,” the Court observed.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the opinion that the petitioner was deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine the plaintiff's witness and the plaintiff himself regarding the sale deed, which would ultimately affect the merits of the case.
Accordingly, the court allowed the Writ Petition.
Case Title: Mahendra Prasad Singh V. Ratan Ram
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 126