Certified Copies Have Same Sanctity as Originals: Supreme Court Restores Auction Buyer’s Title to Municipal Plot

“A Registered Sale Certificate Cannot Be Nullified by a Mere Resolution”, Supreme Court of India quashed a Karnataka High Court ruling that had overturned two concurrent decrees in favour of an auction purchaser of municipal land. The Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Sandeep Mehta held that certified copies issued under Section 376 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 carry the same evidentiary weight as the originals, and that the City Municipal Council (CMC) acted illegally in attempting to cancel a registered sale certificate by passing a mere board resolution.

A 1977 Auction, a Mistaken Plot Number, and a Sudden U-Turn

The appellant, Basheera Khanum, claimed ownership of plot No. 394, purchased in an open auction conducted by the CMC on 24 June 1977. She produced certified copies of auction records, payment receipts, and the registered sale certificate dated 5 November 1980.

Years later, the CMC’s own Junior Engineer confirmed in an inspection report that plot No. 394 had been auctioned to Basheera, while plot No. 395 (bank site No. 2) went to respondent No. 2, T.M. Prabhudeva, in a 1973 auction. The Council even passed a 10 August 1992 resolution rectifying the number in Prabhudeva’s sale deed from 394 to 395.

However, after selling plot No. 395 to a third party, Prabhudeva allegedly colluded with the CMC to have a 29 March 1993 resolution passed declaring that his original sale deed for plot No. 394 was correct — and cancelling Basheera’s sale certificate.

Trial and First Appellate Courts Side with Purchaser

Basheera sued for a declaration of ownership and an injunction. Both the trial court (1998) and first appellate court (2006) found in her favour, holding that the CMC’s resolution was “invalid and non est,” that she had paid the auction price in 1977, and that the registered sale certificate conferred good title.

Significantly, both courts drew an adverse inference against the CMC for failing to produce the original auction records despite a specific court direction.

High Court’s Interference Under Section 100 CPC

In 2011, the Karnataka High Court allowed the CMC’s second appeal, holding that Basheera had failed to prove purchase of the plot and that the burden of proof lay entirely on her.

The Supreme Court called this reasoning “absolutely perverse,” noting that the High Court ignored statutory presumptions under Section 376 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act and the municipal body’s non-compliance with the trial court’s production order.

Certified Copies as Good as Originals

Quoting Section 376(1) of the 1964 Act, the Bench emphasised:

“Certified copies of documents in possession of the Municipal Council… shall be admissible in evidence… to the same extent to which the original document or entry would… have been admissible.”

The Court observed that the appellant’s certified copies — receipts, sale certificate, and CMC resolutions — were unimpeached, while the Council’s failure to produce originals justified the adverse inference.

It also condemned the CMC’s attempt to annul a registered sale certificate by board resolution: “Cancellation of such a valid document of title by simply drawing a resolution… is illegal on the face of the record. Such grossly illegal and high-handed action deserves to be deprecated.”

High Court’s Judgment Quashed, Purchaser’s Title Restored

Finding “wholesome evidence” that Basheera was the auction purchaser of plot No. 394, the Supreme Court restored the trial court’s decree as affirmed by the first appellate court. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.

Date of Decision: 31 July 2025