Supreme Court Lays Down Comprehensive Guidelines To Prevent Misuse Of POCSO Act In Matrimonial Disputes Land Reforms Act | Joint Application For Pre-Emption By Adjoining Landowners Is Maintainable: Calcutta High Court Ocular Evidence In Conflict With Medical Findings Or Withholding Of Natural Witnesses Vitiates Prosecution Case: Allahabad High Court Compassionate Appointment Claim Must Be Decided Based On Policy Prevalent At Time Of Death: Bombay High Court Section 376 IPC | Failure To Prove Initial Dishonest Intent In Marriage Promise Renders Sexual Relationship Consensual: Allahabad High Court Prolonged Incarceration And Delay In Trial Are Valid Grounds To Invoke Constitutional Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 In UAPA Cases: Delhi High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Insurer Liable To Pay And Recover Compensation For Gratuitous Passengers In Goods Vehicles: Gujarat High Court Proof Of Demand And Acceptance Under PC Act Must Be Evaluated Based On Preponderance Of Probabilities In Rebuttal: Kerala High Court Tenancy Claim | Mere Possession Without Lawful Foundation Or Identification Of Tenanted Land Cannot Confer Occupancy Rights: Karnataka High Court 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Evaded By Claiming Physical Disability If Conduct Indicates Concealment Of Financial Means: Kerala High Court M.P. Municipal Corporation Act | Locus Standi Under Section 307(5) Limited To Residents Of The Municipal Area: Madhya Pradesh High Court Writ Jurisdiction | Belated Challenge To Disciplinary Action After Superannuation Amounts To Laches; Petition Dismissed: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC | Mere Pendency Of Partition Suit Does Not Entitle Plaintiff To Injunction Restraining Reconstruction Of Residential Building: Kerala High Court Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Section 482 CrPC | High Court Quashes FIR Following Private Compromise In Non-Heinous Dispute Arising From Civil Conflict Mere Involvement In Criminal Case Does Not Constitute Moral Turpitude To Deny Public Appointment: Telangana High Court Pendency Of Investigation Cannot Be A Blanket Ground To Deny Permission For Foreign Travel: Rajasthan High Court Fraudulent Representation By Counsel Vitiates Ex Parte Decree: Punjab & Haryana High Court Holds Professional Misconduct As Evidence Of Fraud Writ Jurisdiction | Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Pending Criminal And Departmental Proceedings Renders Petition Liable To Dismissal: Orissa High Court Banking Fraud | Failure Of Bank Official To Conduct Physical Inspection Of Collateral Property Constitutes Criminal Conspiracy And Abuse Of Official Position: Madras High Court Fraud Vitiates Judicial Proceedings: Judgment Obtained Through Misrepresentation And Conflict Of Interest Cannot Be Sustained, Holds Punjab And Haryana High Court Discovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act From Publicly Accessible Place Requires Caution: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Articles At Instance Of Accused Without Independent Corroboration Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court DNA Profile Must Be Supported By Other Conclusive Evidence To Prove Guilt: Supreme Court

Landmark Supreme Court Ruling on Admissibility of Certified Copies in Property Disputes

05 September 2024 5:26 AM

By: Admin


In a precedent-setting judgment, the Supreme Court of India has upheld  the admissibility of certified copies in property disputes, settling a long-standing legal debate. The judgment, delivered by Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice C.T. Ravikumar, has far-reaching implications for property cases nationwide.

The case in question revolved around the admissibility of a certified copy of a sale deed, marked as Ext.A1. While the defendant disputed its admissibility, claiming it could not be considered as evidence, the Supreme Court’s ruling firmly establishes the legitimacy of certified copies when certain conditions are met.

Quoting sections of the Evidence Act, the judgment emphasizes that “Sections 65(e), 74(2), 77, and 79 of the Evidence Act, along with Section 57(5) of the Registration Act, make the certified copy of the sale deed admissible in evidence for proving its contents” (Para 29).

The court also addressed the property’s title, affirming that Ext.A5 sale deed legally established the contents of the original sale deed, thereby granting rights over the entire property covered by Exts.A1 and A5 to the appellant/plaintiff. The judgment upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts, stating that there was “no valid reason to reverse the concurrent findings of the lower courts” (Para 33-34).

This ruling has brought much-needed clarity to the admissibility of certified copies in property disputes and may set a precedent for future property cases throughout India.

The legal community and property owners are closely watching the implications of this landmark decision, which is expected to streamline property disputes and enhance the role of certified copies as admissible evidence.

This ruling reaffirms the significance of certified copies in property disputes and marks a pivotal moment in Indian property law.

Date of Decision: September 20, 2023

Appaiya vs Andimuthu@ Thangapandi & Ors

Latest Legal News