Party Pleadings Become Public Documents U/S 74(2) Evidence Act Once Submitted To Court: Kerala High Court

Justice Sathish Ninan clarified that private party pleadings, upon submission to the Court, transform into public records due to Court custody and association with a public office, falling within the purview of Section 74 (2).

“Though pleadings of a party are private in character, once filed in Court, the Court is to retain custody of the same. Therefore, it becomes a record maintained by the Court which is a public office. Records held by a public office partake the character of public records. Therefore pleadings, which are private documents, once filed in Court, form part of public records kept in the Court, thus attracting clause 2 of Section 74 of the Act.”

Factual Background

The suit was filed for partition of properties which belonged to the deceased father of the plaintiffs and defendants. The plaintiffs claim partition of the properties and the defendants deny partition based on three gift deeds allegedly executed by the father. According to the defendants, the father executed gift deeds in their favour and therefore the entire property is not available for partition.

The plaintiffs deny the execution of the gift deeds by the father and seek for partition of the entire properties. The trial court decided against the gift deeds and passed a preliminary decree for partition, which was under challenge before the High Court.

Whilst considering the facts, the Court found that there was a specific mention of the impugned gift deeds in a written statement filed in an earlier suit in their family. The previous litigation was during the lifetime of the father. The father was the defendant and he a filed written statement in that suit admitting to the execution of gift deeds.

The Court considered whether the admission by the father regarding the execution of the gift deeds vide the written statement in the previous litigation in their family can be used as evidence in the present suit between the parties.

Thus, the primary issue before the Court was:

“Is the written statement in a suit, a public document falling under Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act?”

Findings of the Court

The Court held that admission in the written statement in an earlier suit regarding the execution of gifts was substantive evidence in favour of the defendants. The Court disagreed with the findings of the trial court that a certified copy of the written statement was secondary evidence and inadmissible.

Justice Ninan examined the divergent views taken by various High Courts to examine whether pleadings filed in a suit partake the nature of a public document u/s 74 (1) (iii) or u/s 74 (2) of the Evidence Act.

Section 74 defines public documents. Section 74 (1) (iii) deals with documents forming the acts or records of the acts of the Courts. Section 74 (2) refers to private documents kept as public records.

The Court referred to views taken by the Calcutta, Bombay and Orissa High Courts that pleadings were not public documents. It also referred to the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court to state that a certified copy of a written statement was part of the judicial record under Section 74 of the Evidence Act.

The Court also considered the decision of the Gujarat High Court which held that a certified copy of a plaint was a public document. Further, the Court considered the full bench decision of the Madras High Court in Katikineni Venkata Gopala Narasimha Rama Rao vs. Chitluri Venkataramayya (1940) to state that a plaint or a written statement filed in a court becomes part of the record of a case and a public document u/s 74 of the Evidence Act.

Considering the afore decisions, the Court held that the pleadings of parties were not public documents under Section 74 (1)(iii) of the Evidence Act. It held that Section 74 (1) (iii) refers to acts of the Court such as judgments, orders and records of the acts of the Courts such as deposition of the witnesses. Observing thus, the Court held that:

“Section 74(1)(iii) will not take within its sweep the pleadings of the parties they being neither an act of the Court nor a document recording an act of the Court.”

The Court observed that under Rules 113 and 240 of the Civil Rules of Practice, Kerala, Rule 226 of the Criminal Rules of Practice, Kerala, and Rule 129 of the Rules of the High Court of Kerala, 1971, even strangers can obtain certified copies of records and documents filed in the Court.

Coming to Section 74(2), the Court held that pleadings of parties which are private in nature when filed in Court become part of records maintained by the Court. It further held that Court being a public office, the private documents filed by the parties acquire the character of public records.

Thus, it was held that private documents such as pleadings of the parties once filed in Court form part of public records kept in the Court u/s 74(2) of the Evidence Act. 

"A similar view was also taken by the Gauhati High Court in Narattam Das and Others v. Md Masaddar Ali Barbhuiya and Others, (1991) 1 Gau LR 197(DB)). Though the Patna High Court in Gulab Chand v. Shree Karam Lal, AIR 1964 Pat 45 (DB) has taken the view that plaint is not a public document within 74(2) of the Act, for the reasons stated supra, I am unable to concur with the same.”

As such, the Court accepted the written statement and concluded that admissions vide written statement was substantive evidence. The Court also found that the execution and attestation of gift deeds were proved in terms of Section 68 of the Evidence Act. Section 68 provides for proof of execution of documents required by law to be attested.

Thus, the Court allowed the appeal and upheld the validity of the gift deeds and held that properties covered under the gift deeds were excluded from the partition.

Case title: Usha Kumari v Santha Kumari

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 409

Case number: RFA 323/2006

Counsel for the appellants: Senior Counsel T Krishnanunni

Counsel for the respondents: Senior Counsel T Sethumadhavan