Certified Copies Of Registered Sale Deeds Admissible As Secondary Evidence Without Proving Loss Of Original: Gauhati High Court

"Rgistered copy/entry in the registration records maintained by the Sub-Registrar, is a public document under Section 74(2) of the Indian Evidence Act... [and] are admissible as secondary evidence, without needing to explain the non-production of the original."

The Gauhati High Court, in a significant ruling dated June 1, 2026, held that certified copies of registered sale deeds are public documents under the Indian Evidence Act and are admissible as secondary evidence without requiring the party to prove the loss or destruction of the original. A bench of Justice Robin Phukan observed that Section 65(e) of the Evidence Act stands independently and dispenses with the foundational requirements typically associated with other forms of secondary evidence.

The court clarified that while a sale deed itself is a private document, the entry made in the register book maintained by the Sub-Registrar constitutes a public record of a private document. Consequently, a certified copy issued by the registration department can be produced as secondary evidence under Section 77 of the Act to prove the contents of the original registration entry.

The case arose from a Title Suit filed by the legal heirs of late Biswajit Singha seeking a declaration of title and eviction of the defendant, Pradip Barman, from a plot of land in Bongaigaon. The plaintiffs claimed title through a registered sale deed from 1994, while the defendant asserted he was a caretaker for one Achyut Chandra Das, who allegedly purchased the land in 1969. The Trial Court and First Appellate Court had decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, leading to this Second Appeal.

The primary question before the court was whether certified copies of registered sale deeds (Exhibits ‘Ka’ and ‘Kha’) were admissible in evidence without laying a foundation for secondary evidence under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act. The court also examined if such documents qualify as "public documents" under Section 74(2) of the Act.

Registered Sale Deeds Categorized As Public Records Of Private Documents

The court began by examining the nature of registration entries under the Indian Evidence Act. It noted that under Section 74(2), public records kept in any State of private documents are considered public documents. The bench observed that while the original sale deed executed between private parties remains a private document, the registered entry in the records of the Sub-Registrar is a public record.

Interplay Between Section 65(e) And Admissibility Of Certified Copies

The Court highlighted that for documents falling under Section 65(e)—which concerns public documents—a certified copy is the only admissible secondary evidence. Unlike other clauses of Section 65 that require a party to prove the original is lost, destroyed, or in the possession of the adversary, Section 65(e) operates independently of these procedural hurdles.

"Section 65(e) stands independently. It dispenses with the foundational requirements of the other clauses of Section 65."

Application Of Recent Supreme Court Precedents

Justice Phukan relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s decision in Appaiya Vs. Andimuthu @ Thangapandi (2024). The High Court noted that the apex court explicitly addressed the interplay between Section 65(e) and Section 74(2), confirming that for public documents, secondary evidence as to contents may be given by producing a certified copy without needing to account for the non-production of the original.

Court Rejects Requirement To Prove Loss Of Original For Public Records

The bench found that the lower courts erred in holding the defendant's exhibits ('Ka' and 'Kha') inadmissible simply because the defendant did not prove the conditions for secondary evidence. The court held that since these were certified copies of registered deeds, they were admissible per se to prove the contents of the registration entry.

"The certified copy, issued by the registration department is treated as a public document and can be produced as secondary evidence, (without needing the original)."

The Best Evidence Rule And Preponderance Of Probability

Despite the legal finding on admissibility, the Court turned to the "Best Evidence Rule." It observed that while the defendant's certified copies were admissible, the plaintiffs had produced the original sale deeds (Primary Evidence). The bench noted that primary evidence under Section 62 is the highest and most reliable form of proof and carries more weight than secondary evidence.

Weight Of Evidence Favors Original Deeds Over Certified Copies

Comparing the titles, the court found that the plaintiffs’ documents were original and their names were duly mutated in the record of rights. In contrast, the defendant’s predecessor-in-interest had failed in previous litigations to establish title. The court concluded that the preponderance of probability remained firmly with the plaintiffs due to the superior weight of primary evidence.

"The balance is found to be tilted in favour of the plaintiffs’ for the simple reason that Exhibit-1 and 2 are admissible as primary evidence, bearing more weight... than that of the Exhibit-‘Ka’ and Exhibit ‘Kha’, which are admissible as secondary evidence."

The High Court concluded that while the lower courts’ reasoning on the admissibility of the certified copies was legally flawed, their final decision to decree the suit in favor of the plaintiffs was correct based on the weight of the evidence. The court answered the substantial question of law in favor of admissibility but dismissed the appeal, affirming the eviction order against the defendant.

Date of Decision: June 01, 2026