Partition Deed Must Be Proven By Primary Evidence If Execution Is Disputed: Jharkhand High Court Annuls Appellate Decree

"Certified Copy Cannot Prove Title When Original Partition Deed Is Disputed" – In a significant ruling overturned the First Appellate Court’s partial decree favoring the plaintiffs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary held that a certified copy of a partition deed is inadmissible in evidence if the execution of the original document is disputed and the foundational facts for producing secondary evidence are not established.

Emphasizing the sanctity of primary evidence under the Indian Evidence Act, the Court declared, "Secondary evidence is not admissible as of right when execution is denied. Foundational facts must be established to the satisfaction of the Court."

The plaintiffs had based their claim to the disputed land upon a 1969 registered partition deed and a 1996 sale deed. While the Trial Court had entirely dismissed the suit, citing lack of proper proof of the partition deed, the First Appellate Court partly decreed it by relying on the certified copy of the partition deed. The appellants (defendants) challenged this reliance before the High Court, asserting that the execution of the deed was in dispute and no valid secondary evidence had been led.

The principal question before the Court was whether the certified copy of the partition deed (Exhibit-4) could be treated as sufficient proof of partition when the original was not produced and the execution was specifically denied.

Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary observed, "The learned first appellate court has applied incorrect principle of law and was not justified in relying upon Exhibit-4, a true copy of the partition deed, in the absence of foundational facts to adduce secondary evidence under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, particularly when execution was denied."

The Court noted that merely because a document is over 30 years old does not automatically entitle it to the presumption of due execution under Section 90 of the Evidence Act, especially where execution itself is disputed. Citing Lakhi Baruah vs. Padma Kanta Kalita, (1996) 8 SCC 357, it was held that "proof of execution is indispensable when execution is denied."

Further condemning the approach of the First Appellate Court, Justice Choudhary remarked, "The findings of the learned first appellate court are based on conjectures and surmises and accordingly, cannot be sustained in the eye of law."

It was also pointed out that the plaintiffs’ reliance on rent receipts could not support their case, as those documents did not describe the land in question with specificity.

Setting aside the judgment of the Principal District Judge, Garhwa, the High Court restored the Trial Court's judgment dismissing the plaintiffs' suit entirely. In answering the substantial questions of law framed, the Court made it clear that "admission of secondary evidence without fulfillment of foundational requirements vitiates the decree."
Ultimately, the Court ruled that "where execution of a document is specifically denied, mere production of a certified copy without proving loss of the original cannot establish title."

The Jharkhand High Court has reaffirmed that in property disputes, particularly where partition deeds are relied upon, strict compliance with the Indian Evidence Act is indispensable. It underscored that "Secondary evidence cannot replace primary evidence when the very execution of the document is questioned."

The judgment represents a stern reminder against casual admission of secondary evidence, ensuring procedural safeguards to protect against fabricated claims.

Date of Decision: 24 April 2025