No Acts & Articles mentioned in this case
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT: HYDERABAD
CORAM:
* THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
+ CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1944 OF 2022
% Delivered on:20-12-2022
Between:
# Mr. Katike Bheem Shankar .. Petitioner
Vs.
$ Mrs. T. Laxmi @ Punyavathi & others .. Respondents
! For Petitioner : Mr. R. Dheeraj Singh
^ For Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Mr. N. Ashok Kumar
For Respondent Nos.3 to 5 : ---
< Gist :
> Head Note :
? Cases Referred :
1. 2015 SCC OnLine Hyd 389
2. 2010 SCC OnLine AP 350
3. Order in Second Appeal No.183 of 2014 decided 12.07.2019
4. 1959 Supp (2) SCR 798
5. (2001) 6 SCC 254
6. (1880) 5 App Cas 623
7. 1988 Supp SCC 604
8. (2011) 8 SCC 497
9. 2015 SCC OnLine MP 2812
10. 2016 SCC OnLine P&H 11166
11. 2018 SCC OnLine P&H 556
12. 1973 SCC OnLine Pat 95
KL,J
CRP No.1944 of 2022
2
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1944 OF 2022
ORDER:
The present Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the
order dated 26.04.2022 passed in I.A. No.230 of 2019 in O.S. No. 116
of 2017 by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge
(FTC), Mahabubnagar (hereinafter referred to as ‘trial Court’),
wherein the information obtained by the petitioner herein under the
Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘RTI Act,
2005’) was not admitted as evidence on the ground that the documents
obtained under the RTI Act, 2005 are not certified copies of public
documents.
2. Heard Mr. R. Dheeraj Singh, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. N. Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for respondent
Nos.1 and 2. It is mentioned in the cause title that respondent Nos.3
to 5 are not necessary parties to the present revision.
KL,J
CRP No.1944 of 2022
3
3. Facts of the case
:
i) Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the original plaintiffs, have filed
O.S. No. 116 of 2017 seeking specific performance of agreement of
sale dated 09.02.2015 against the petitioner herein (Defendant No. 1
in the suit). According to respondent Nos.1 and 2, they are the legal
heirs of one T. Kishan.
ii) Allegedly, the petitioner herein along with other respondents
agreed to sell land admeasuring Acs.55-16 Guntas, situated at
Manikonda Village of Kolikonda Mandal, presently merged with
Mahabubnagar Mandal (hereinafter referred to as ‘subject property’)
for a total sale consideration of Rs.83,10,000/- to the said T. Kishan.
The petitioner herein allegedly received Rs. 50,00,000/- as part of
advance payment from T. Kishan and executed an agreement of sale
dated 09.02.2015 in his favour. It is relevant to note that the said
agreement of sale was executed on a non-judicial stamp paper bearing
No.B 355988. The balance amount of Rs. 33,10,000/- was agreed to
be paid on execution of sale deed, demarcation of lands and obtaining
pattadar pass books.
KL,J
CRP No.1944 of 2022
4
iii) According to respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein, T. Kishan was
always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, but the
petitioner herein failed to execute sale deed in respect of the subject
property. The said T. Kishan passed away on 09.05.2016 leaving
behind respondent Nos.1 and 2. According to respondents Nos.1 and
2, despite continuous requests, the petitioner herein did not execute a
sale deed. Therefore, respondent No.1 got issued legal notices dated
17.06.2017 and 23.08.2017 demanding the petitioner herein to execute
a sale deed in respect of the subject property. As the petitioner herein
along with other defendants failed to execute the sale deed, respondent
Nos.1 and 2 filed O.S. No. 116 of 2017 seeking specific performance
of agreement of sale dated 09.02.2015.
iv) The Petitioner herein along with other defendants denied
the allegations of respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein and contended that
they have not executed the agreement of sale dated 09.02.2015 and the
said agreement of sale is a forged one. While the said suit was
pending, the petitioner herein filed I.A. No.230 of 2019 to receive
certain documents obtained by him under the RTI Act, 2005 as
evidence on the ground that they are public documents.
KL,J
CRP No.1944 of 2022
5
v) The following documents were filed by the petitioner herein
to be received as evidence:
a) Letter dated 18.04.2018 issued by the Public Information
Officer, Stamps and Registration Department, Sangareddy
stating that non-judicial stamp paper bearing no. B 355988
was sold to K. Balakrishna (stamp vendor).
b) Non-judicial stamp papers sale register from 02.01.2015 to
31.12.2015 issued by the Joint Sub-Registrar, Sangareddy
showing the sale of non-judicial stamp papers by one K.
Balakrishna (stamp vendor).
c) Letters dated 14.03.2018 and 21.03.2018 issued by the Public
Information Officer, Commissioner and Inspector General of
Stamps and Registration, Hyderabad stating that non-judicial
stamps of Rs. 100 denomination bearing nos. B 352001 to B
360000 were issued to the District Registrar Office,
Sangareddy.
d) Letter dated 14.03.2018 issued by the Public Information
Officer, Sub-Registrar’s office, Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar along
KL,J
CRP No.1944 of 2022
6
with the enclosures of renewal of license and sale register of B.
Chaitanya (stamp vendor).
vi) The trial Court vide order dated 26.04.2022 refused to
accept the said documents as public documents under the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter called as ‘the Act, 1872’) on the
ground that the said documents are not certified copies of public
documents and are merely Xerox copies of private documents
maintained by the concerned departments. Therefore, the said
documents obtained under the RTI Act, 2005 were inadmissible in
evidence.
vii) Therefore, the present civil revision petition is filed
challenging the order passed by the trial Court.
4. Contentions of the petitioner
:
i. True copies of public documents certified by a Public
Information Officer can be taken as certified copies of public
documents. Reliance was placed on Datti Kameswari v.
Singam Rao Sarath Chandra
1
.
1
. 2015 SCC OnLine Hyd 389
KL,J
CRP No.1944 of 2022
7
ii. The alleged agreement of sale dated 09.02.2015 bearing No.
B 355988 contains the name of one B. Chaitanya (Stamp
Vendor), whereas the information obtained under the RTI
Act, 2005 states that the said stamp paper was allotted to one
K. Balakrishna (Stamp Vendor). The RTI information also
shows that the said stamp paper was allotted to Office of
Sub-Registrar, Sangareddy, whereas the said stamp paper
containing the agreement of sale states that it was sold by B.
Chaitanya at S.R. Nagar. Further, the information under RTI
shows that the said stamp paper was sold to one B.
Dasharath Goud and not to T. Kishan. This shows that the
stamp paper on which the agreement of sale was executed
was a forged one and the petitioner never signed the same.
Therefore, the said documents shall be admissible as
evidence.
5. Contentions of respondents
:
i. The allegations of the petitioner were denied and it was
contended that the non-judicial stamp paper containing the
KL,J
CRP No.1944 of 2022
8
agreement of sale was purchased by the petitioner in the
name of T. Kishan (husband of respondent No. 1).
ii. Further, it was contended that the documents received under
the RTI Act, 2005 are not certified copies of public
documents and are inadmissible in evidence. Reliance was
placed on Bhaskar Rao v. K.A. Rama Rao
2
.
6. Analysis and findings of the Court
:
i) From the facts of the case and the contentions of the parties,
the following issues fall for consideration before this Court:
1. Whether certified copies of register of sale of non-judicial
stamp papers maintained at a sub-registrar’s office and issued
by a Public Information Officer under the RTI Act, 2005 falls
within the definition of a Public Document under Section 74 of
the Act, 1872?
2. Whether information issued in the form of a letter by a Public
Information Officer under the RTI Act, 2005 falls within the
2
. 2010 SCC OnLine AP 350
KL,J
CRP No.1944 of 2022
9
definition of a Public Document under Section 74 of the Act,
1872?
ii) Before discussing the issues at hand, it is apposite to discuss
the provisions relating to admissibility of documents as public
documents under the Indian evidence law. For the sake of
convenience, the relevant provisions under the Act, 1872 are extracted
below:
35. Relevancy of entry in public record [or an electronic
record], made in performance of duty. —An entry in any
public or other official book, register or record [or an
electronic record], stating a fact in issue or relevant fact,
and made by a public servant in the discharge of his official
duty, or by any other person in performance of a duty
specially enjoined by the law of the country in which such
book, register or record [or an electronic record] is kept, is
itself a relevant fact.
61. Proof of contents of documents. —The contents of
documents may be proved either by primary or by
secondary evidence.
62. Primary evidence. —Primary evidence means the
document itself produced for the inspection of the Court.
Explanation 1.—Where a document is executed in several
parts, each part is primary evidence of the document.
Where a document is executed in counterpart, each
counterpart being executed by one or some of the parties
KL,J
CRP No.1944 of 2022
10
only, each counterpart is primary evidence as against the
parties executing it.
Explanation 2.—Where a number of documents are all
made by one uniform process, as in the case of printing,
lithography, or photography, each is primary evidence of
the contents of the rest; but where they are all copies of a
common original, they are not primary evidence of the
contents of the original.
63. Secondary evidence
. —Secondary evidence means and
includes—
(1) certified copies given under the provisions hereinafter
contained;
(2) copies made from the original by mechanical processes
which in themselves insure the accuracy of the copy, and
copies compared with such copies;
(3) copies made from or compared with the original;
(4) counterparts of documents as against the parties who
did not execute them;
(5) oral accounts of the contents of a document given by
some person who has himself seen it.
64. Proof of documents by primary evidence. —
Documents must be proved by primary evidence except in
the cases hereinafter mentioned.
65. Cases in which secondary evidence relating to
documents may be given. —Secondary evidence may be
given of the existence, condition or contents of a document
in the following cases—
(a) when the original is shown or appears to be in the
possession or power—
KL,J
CRP No.1944 of 2022
11
of the person against whom the document is sought to be
proved, or of any person out of reach of, or not subject to,
the process of the Court, or of any person legally bound to
produce it, and when, after the notice mentioned in Section
66, such person does not produce it;
(b) when the existence, condition or contents of the original
have been proved to be admitted in writing by the person
against whom it is proved or by his representative in
interest;
(c) when the original has been destroyed or lost, or when
the party offering evidence of its contents cannot, for any
other reason not arising from his own default or neglect,
produce it in reasonable time;
(d) when the original is of such a nature as not to be easily
movable;
(e) when the original is a public document within the
meaning of Section 74;
(f) when the original is a document of which a certified
copy is permitted by this Act, or by any other law in force
in 91[India], to be given in evidence;92
(g) when the originals consist of numerous accounts or
other documents which cannot conveniently be examined
in Court, and the fact to be proved is the general result of
the whole collection.
In cases (a), (c) and (d), any secondary evidence of the
contents of the document is admissible.
In case (b), the written admission is admissible.
In case (e) or (f), a certified copy of the document, but no
other kind of secondary evidence, is admissible.
KL,J
CRP No.1944 of 2022
12
In case (g), evidence may be given as to the general result
of the documents by any person who has examined them,
and who is skilled in the examination of such documents.
74. Public documents
. —The following documents are
public documents—
(1) documents forming the acts or records of the acts—
(i) of the sovereign authority,
(ii) of official bodies and tribunals, and
(iii) of public officers, legislative, judicial and executive,
[of any part of India or of the Commonwealth], or of a
foreign country;
(2) public records kept [in any State] of private documents.
75. Private documents
. —All other documents are private.
76. Certified copies of public documents.—Every public
officer having the custody of a public document, which any
person has a right to inspect, shall give that person on
demand a copy of it on payment of the legal fees therefor,
together with a certificate written at the foot of such copy
that it is a true copy of such document or part thereof, as
the case may be, and such certificate shall be dated and
subscribed by such officer with his name and his official
title, and shall be sealed, whenever such officer is
authorized by law to make use of a seal; and such copies so
certified shall be called certified copies.
Explanation. —Any officer who, by the ordinary course of
official duty, is authorized to deliver such copies, shall be
deemed to have the custody of such documents within the
meaning of this section.
77. Proof of documents by production of certified
copies. —Such certified copies may be produced in proof
KL,J
CRP No.1944 of 2022
13
of the contents of the public documents or parts of the
public documents of which they purport to be copies.
79. Presumption as to genuineness of certified copies
. —
The Court shall presume [to be genuine] every document
purporting to be a certificate, certified copy or other
document, which is by law declared to be admissible as
evidence of any particular fact and which purports to be
duly certified by any officer [of the Central Government or
of a State Government, or by any officer [in the State of
Jammu and Kashmir] who is duly authorised thereto by the
Central Government]:
Provided that such document is substantially in the form
and purports to be executed in the manner directed by law
in that behalf.
The Court shall also presume that any officer by whom any
such document purports to be signed or certified, held,
when he signed it, the official character which he claims in
such paper.
iii) Under the Indian evidence law, documentary evidence can
be proved either by primary evidence or secondary evidence.
Existence of a document and its contents is said to be proved by
primary evidence only when the original document itself is placed to
be marked as evidence. On the other hand, if the original document is
unavailable or lost or is not in possession of the party seeking to rely
on such original document, the existence of such document can be
proved by secondary evidence. Secondary evidence in relation to a
KL,J
CRP No.1944 of 2022
14
document can be given by producing copies of the documents which
were made from the original. However, the requirements of Section
65 of the Act, 1872 have to be satisfied in cases of giving secondary
evidence of documents.
iv) Now coming to the procedure of marking public documents
as evidence, Section 74 of the Act, 1872 defines public documents.
Public documents can be proved through primary evidence by
producing the original copies. However, more often than not the
original copies of public documents are in the possession of the
authorities and the same cannot be directly produced before the
Courts. In such cases, certified copies may be given as secondary
evidence of the public documents. Under Section 65(e) and Section
65(f) of the Act, 1872, secondary evidence of public documents may
be given through certified copies. Further, Section 77 of the Act,
1872 also states that public documents can be proved by production of
certified copies of such documents.
v) It is relevant to note that in cases of private documents, the
party willing to mark such documents has to lay a foundation under
KL,J
CRP No.1944 of 2022
15
Sections 65(a) or Section 65(b) or Section 65(c) to prove that the
original copies of such documents are not available. However, no
such requirement is needed to mark public documents. It is enough
for the party to place the certified copy of such public document.
vi) In Akbarbhai Kesarbhai Sipai v. Mohanbhai Ambabhai
Patel
3
, the Gujarat High Court has held as follows:
“74. The aforesaid contention of Mr. Desai as regards
failure on the part of the defendants to lay any
foundation to adduce secondary evidence should fail on
the simple ground that the production of marking of
certified copy as secondary evidence of a public
document under Section 65(E) or 65(F) of the Evidence
Act need not be preceded by laying any foundation for
acceptance of the secondary evidence. At the cost of
repetition, I state that the certified copy of a registered
instrument/document issued by the Registering Officer
by copying from Book-I, is a certified copy of a public
document. It can therefore be produced in proof of the
contents of the public document or part of the public
document of which it purports to be a copy. It can be
produced as secondary evidence of the public document
(entries in Book I), under Section 65(e) read with
Section 77 of the Evidence Act.
3
. Order in Second Appeal No.183 of 2014 decided 12.07.2019
KL,J
CRP No.1944 of 2022
16
79. It is, therefore, clear that a person proposing to give
secondary evidence by invoking clauses (a), (b) and (c) of
Section 65 of the Evidence Act, has to first lay a foundation
to the effect that the document is not in his possession and
has not been produced inspite of a notice by the person who
is in possession of the same; that the existence, condition or
contents of the original have been proved to be admitted in
writing or that the original has been destroyed, lost or
cannot be produced, respectively. It is further clear from
a perusal of Section 65(e) and (f) that the aforesaid
requirement, which are prescribed in Section 65(a), (b)
and (c), are not required to be established when the
person seeks to give secondary evidence by producing a
certified copy of a document alone and no other kind of
secondary evidence of a document which is a public
document within the meaning of Section 65(e) of the
Evidence Act or by giving a certified copy of a
document alone and no other kind of secondary
evidence of a document which is a certified copy of an
original permitted by the Evidence Act or by any other
law to be given in evidence under Section 65(f) of the
Evidence Act as the preconditions mentioned in Section
65(a), (b) and (c) of the Evidence Act cannot be read
into Section 65(e) or (f) by any stretch of statutory
interpretation.
80. In view of the aforesaid analysis I am of the considered
opinion that while a sale deed per se is a private document
KL,J
CRP No.1944 of 2022
17
but once it is registered and entered in Book-I by the
Registering Officer under Section 51 of the Registration
Act, the records thereof maintained by such Registering
Officer is a public document as defined by Section 74 of
the Evidence Act and, therefore, a certified copy of the
same can be given as secondary evidence of the existence,
condition or contents of the same.”
The aforesaid decision i.e., Akbarbhai (supra) was confirmed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 26.08.2019 in SLP (C) Diary
No. 27935/2019.
vii) It is also relevant to note that Section 79 of the Act, 1872
provides that the Courts shall presume the genuineness of certified
copies of public documents. However, the Supreme Court in Bhinka
v. Charan Singh
4
, has held that the presumption provided under
Section 79 is rebuttable and parties can lead evidence to rebut the
presumption of genuineness. The relevant paragraphs are extracted
below:
“7. The first point, in the manner presented before us, does
not appear to have been raised in any of the three Courts.
Section 79 of the evidence Act reads:
4
. 1959 Supp (2) SCR 798
KL,J
CRP No.1944 of 2022
18
“The Court shall presume to be genuine every
document purporting to be a certificate, … which is by law
declared to be admissible as evidence of any particular fact,
and which purports to be duly certified by any officer of the
Central Government or of a State Government,…
Provided that such document is substantially in the form
and purports to be executed in the manner directed by law
in that behalf.
The Court shall also presume that any officer by whom
any such document purports to be signed or certified, held,
when he signed it, the official character which he claims in
such paper.”
Under this section a Court is bound to draw the
presumption that a certified copy of a document is
genuine and also that the officer signed it in the official
character which he claimed in the said document. But
such a presumption is permissible only if the certified
copy is substantially in the form and purported to be
executed in the manner provided by law in that behalf.
Section 4 of the Evidence Act indicates the limits of such
a presumption. The relevant part of that section reads;
“Whenever it is directed by this Act that the Court shall
presume a fact, it shall regard such fact as proved, unless
and until it is disproved.”
KL,J
CRP No.1944 of 2022
19
To put it differently, if a certified copy was executed
substantially in the form and in the manner provided by
law, the Court raises a rebuttable presumption in regard to
its genuineness. The khatauni of 1355 fasli with which we
are concerned, gives the relevant details and purports to
have been signed by Ahmed Ali, the patwari of the village.
It cannot be disputed that the patwari was an officer
appointed by the State Government and that he was
authorized to issue certified copies of the record of rights.
The U.P. Land Records Manual gives the rules prescribing
the form and the manner in which a certified copy of the
record of rights should be issued. Para 26 of the Manual
confers upon him the power to give to the applicants
certified copies from his record; and under clause (d) of the
said paragraph he should enter in his diary a note of such
extracts. He should also note the amount of fee realised by
him in the diary as well as on the extract. In this case
neither the diary was produced to prove that the procedure
prescribed was followed nor the extract to disclose that the
officer made any note of payment. It cannot, therefore, be
said that the certified copy was issued by the patwari in
substantial compliance with the provisions of law
governing such issue. If so, it follows that the Court is not
bound to draw the presumption in regard to its genuineness.
8. That apart, a Court is bound to draw only a
rebuttable presumption in regard to its genuineness. In
this case the three Courts rejected the document on the
KL,J
CRP No.1944 of 2022
20
ground that it was not genuine on the basis of not only
the internal evidence furnished by the document but
also on other evidence. They have given convincing
reasons for doing so, and even if there was any
rebuttable presumption, it was rebutted in the present
case.”
viii) In State of Haryana v. Ram Singh
5
, the Apex Court has
held that the Courts can presume the genuineness of certified copies of
public documents and admit the same without examining the parties to
the documents and the author of such documents, unless the
genuineness of such documents is questioned. The relevant paragraph
is extracted below:
“6. Section 51-A of the Act is to the same effect. In Land
Acquisition Officer & Mandal Revenue Officer v. V.
Narasaiah [(2001) 3 SCC 530] it was held that by virtue of
Section 51-A, a certified copy of a document registered
under the Registration Act, 1908 including a copy under
Section 57 of the Act may be accepted as evidence of the
transaction recorded in such documents. It is open to the
Court to accept the certified copy as reliable evidence
and without examining parties to the documents. This
does not however preclude the Court from rejecting the
5
. (2001) 6 SCC 254
KL,J
CRP No.1944 of 2022
21
transaction itself as being mala fide or sham provided
such a challenge is laid before the Court.”
ix) Therefore, secondary evidence of public documents can be
given through certified copies of such documents. No other proof is
required to prove the contents of such certified copies as the Courts
will presume their genuineness. However, the other party can always
dispute the genuineness of such certified copies by leading evidence.
x) This takes me to another important question to decide the
issues at hand i.e., what constitutes a public document for the purposes
of admissibility under the Act, 1872? Section 74 of the Act, 1872
defines public documents as documents forming acts and records of
the sovereign, official bodies, tribunals, public officers of legislative,
judicial or executive departments of India or a foreign country and
public records of private documents. A bare reading of Section 74
indicates that a broad ambit is provided for the Courts to determine if
a particular document constitutes a public document or not. The terms
official bodies, public records, public officers, etc., as seen in Section
74 are not defined. Therefore, this raises a question as to what shall
KL,J
CRP No.1944 of 2022
22
be the test to determine if a document falls within the definition of
public document.
xi) Black’s Law Dictionary (9
th
Edition) defines public
document and public record as follows:
“Public document:
A document of public interest issued
or published by a political body or otherwise connected
with public business.”
“Public record: A record that a governmental unit is
required by law to keep, such as land deeds kept at a county
Courthouse. Public records are generally open to view by
the public.”
Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edn., Vol 17 defines as follows
documents that are public documents:
“To render such a document admissible there must have
been a judicial or quasi-judicial duty to inquire, undertaken
by a public officer, the matter must have been required to
be ascertained for a public purpose, and the document must
have been made for the purpose of the public making use of
it and being able to refer to it.”
KL,J
CRP No.1944 of 2022
23
xii) Under the English law, the test to determine public
documents was laid down by Lord Blackburn in Sturla v. Freccia
6
.
As per the said decision, a public document is a document which is
made available to public on request. The public shall have a right to
inspect such document which is kept in records of official bodies and
public authorities. The relevant portion of Lord Blackburn’s opinion
is extracted below:
“Taking that decision, the principle upon which it goes is
that there should be a public inquiry, and a public
document made by a public officer. I do not think that
"public" is to be taken there as meaning the whole world. I
think an entry in the books of a manor is public in the sense
that it concerns all the people interested in the manor, and
an entry probably in a corporation book concerning a
corporation matter, or something in which all the
corporation is concerned, would be public within that
sense. But it must be a public document, and it must be
made by a public officer. I understand a public document
there to mean a document that is made for the purpose
of the public making use of it, and being able to refer to
it. It is meant to be where there is a judicial or quasi-
judicial duty to inquire, as might be said to be the case
6
. (1880) 5 App Cas 623
KL,J
CRP No.1944 of 2022
24
with the bishop acting under the writ issued by the
Crown. That may be said to be quasi-judicial. He is
acting for the public when that is done. But I think that
the very object of it must be that it should be made for
the purpose of being kept public, so that the persons
concerned in it may have access to it afterwards. In
many cases entries in the parish register of births,
marriages, and deaths, and other entries of that kind, before
there were any statute, relating to them, were admissible,
and they were public then because the common law of
England made the entries, kept in that sense by a public
officer for the purpose of a register, a public document. I
think it will be found that in any case in which a public
document of that sort has been admitted, it has been
made originally with the intent that it should be
returned and kept as a register to be referred to ever
after.”
xiii) Under the Indian evidence law, only documents as
provided under Section 74 of the Act, 1872 constitute public
documents and all other documents are private documents. To
determine what constitutes public documents, the Courts shall fall
back on Section 35 of the Act, 1872. Section 35 provides that any
entry made by a public servant in discharge of his official duty or any
entry made by a person in discharge of his duties as required under
KL,J
CRP No.1944 of 2022
25
any law in a public register or an official book or a record or
electronic record shall be a relevant fact. Such relevant facts under
Section 35 of the Act, 1872 can be proved by certified copies of such
public register or an official book or a record or electronic record.
xiv) In Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit
7
, the Apex Court
laid down the criteria to determine admissibility of documents under
Section 35 of the Act, 1872. The relevant paragraph is extracted
below:
“15. The High Court held that in view of the entries
contained in the Exs. 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 proved by
Anantram Sharma PW 3 and Kailash Chandra Taparia PW
5, the date of birth of Hukmi Chand and Suraj Prakash
Joshi was proved and on that assumption it held that the
two candidates had attained more than 25 years of age on
the date of their nomination. In our opinion the High Court
committed serious error. Section 35 of the Indian Evidence
Act lays down that entry in any public, official book,
register, record stating a fact in issue or relevant fact and
made by a public servant in the discharge of his official
duty specially enjoined by the law of the country is itself
the relevant fact. To render a document admissible
7
. 1988 Supp SCC 604
KL,J
CRP No.1944 of 2022
26
under Section 35, three conditions must be satisfied,
firstly, entry that is relied on must be one in a public or
other official book, register or record; secondly, it must
be an entry stating a fact in issue or relevant fact; and
thirdly, it must be made by a public servant in
discharge of his official duty, or any other person in
performance of a duty specially enjoined by law. An
entry relating to date of birth made in the school register is
relevant and admissible under Section 35 of the Act but the
entry regarding the age of a person in a school register is of
not much evidentiary value to prove the age of the person
in the absence of the material on which the age was
recorded. In Raja Janaki Nath Roy v. Jyotish Chandra
Acharya Chowdhury [AIR 1941 Cal 41 : 45 CWN 141 :
193 IC 419] a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court
discarded the entry in school register about the age of a
party to the suit on the ground that there was no evidence to
show on what material the entry in the register about the
age of the plaintiff was made. The principle so laid down
has been accepted by almost all the High Courts in the
country, see Jagan Nath v. Mali Ram [AIR 1951 Punj 377]
, Sakhi Ram v. Presiding Officer [AIR 1966 Pat 459]
, Ghanchi Vora SamsuddisnIsabhai v. State of
Gujarat [AIR 1970 Guj 178] and Radha
KishanTickoo v. Bhushan Lal Tickoo [AIR 1971 J&K 62] ,
In addition to these decisions the High Courts of
Allahabad, Bombay, Madras have considered the question
KL,J
CRP No.1944 of 2022
27
of probative value of an entry regarding the date of birth
made in the scholar's register or in school certificate in
election cases. The Courts have consistently held that the
date of birth mentioned in the scholar's register or
secondary school certificate has no probative value unless
either the parents are examined or the person on whose
information the entry may have been made, is examined,
see Jagdamba Prasad v. Jagannath Prasad, [42 ELR 465
(All HC)] K. Paramalali v. I.M. Alangam [31 ELR 401
(Mad HC)] , Krishna Rao Maharu Patil v. Onkar Narayan
Wagh [14 ELR 386 (Bom HC)].”
xv) Therefore, for the purposes of determining what constitutes
a public document, Section 35 is to be read with Section 74. The
following shall be the criteria to determine if a document is a public
document:
(a) The document shall be part of public record which is required
to be maintained under any law by public officers or
government employees or any other person in discharge of
their official duties.
(b) The document shall be accessible to general public and the
concerned authority shall be duty bound to provide certified
KL,J
CRP No.1944 of 2022
28
copies of such document as and when requested by any
person.
Given the aforesaid discussion, this Court shall now examine whether
certified copies of documents and information in the form of letters
obtained under the RTI Act, 2002 fall within the definition of public
documents under Section 74 of the Act, 1872.
xvi) It is relevant to note that the RTI Act, 2005 was enacted in
recognition of citizens’ right to information. The object behind RTI
Act, 2005 is to provide information maintained by public authorities
to the general public in order to achieve the goal of transparency in
governance. The RTI Act, 2005 also provides that the information
obtained by citizens can be used to seek any relief.
xvii) The Apex Court in CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay
8
,
discussed various provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 and explained its
scope as follows:
“12. To consider these questions, it is necessary to refer to
the Statement of Objects and Reasons, the Preamble and
the relevant provisions of the RTI Act. The RTI Act was
8
. (2011) 8 SCC 497
KL,J
CRP No.1944 of 2022
29
enacted in order to ensure smoother, greater and more
effective access to information and provide an effective
framework for effectuating the right to information
recognised under Article 19 of the Constitution. The
Preamble to the Act declares the object sought to be
achieved by the RTI Act thus:
“An Act to provide for setting out the practical regime
of right to information for citizens to secure access to
information under the control of public authorities, in order
to promote transparency and accountability in the working
of every public authority, the constitution of a Central
Information Commission and State Information
Commissions and for matters connected therewith or
incidental thereto.
Whereas the Constitution of India has established
democratic republic;
And whereas democracy requires an informed citizenry
and transparency of information which are vital to its
functioning and also to contain corruption and to hold
Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the
governed;
And whereas revelation of information in actual
practice is likely to conflict with other public interests
including efficient operations of the Governments,
optimum use of limited fiscal resources and the
preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information;
KL,J
CRP No.1944 of 2022
30
And whereas it is necessary to harmonise these
conflicting interests while preserving the paramountcy of
the democratic ideal;”
13. Chapter II of the Act containing Sections 3 to 11 deals
with the right to information and obligations of public
authorities. Section 3 provides for the right to information
and reads thus: “Subject to the provisions of this Act, all
citizens shall have the right to information.” This section
makes it clear that the RTI Act gives a right to a citizen
to only access information, but not to seek any
consequential relief based on such information.
14. Section 4 deals with the obligations of public
authorities to maintain the records in the manner provided
and publish and disseminate the information in the manner
provided. Section 6 deals with requests for obtaining
information. It provides that the applicant making a request
for information shall not be required to give any reason for
requesting the information or any personal details except
those that may be necessary for contacting him.
*******
23. The definition of “information” in Section 2(f) of the
RTI Act refers to any material in any form which includes
records, documents, opinions, papers among several other
enumerated items. The term “record” is defined in Section
2(i) of the said Act as including any document, manuscript
or file among others. When a candidate participates in an
KL,J
CRP No.1944 of 2022
31
examination and writes his answers in an answer book and
submits it to the examining body for evaluation and
declaration of the result, the answer book is a document or
record. When the answer book is evaluated by an examiner
appointed by the examining body, the evaluated answer
book becomes a record containing the “opinion” of the
examiner. Therefore the evaluated answer book is also an
“information” under the RTI Act.
24. Section 3 of the RTI Act provides that subject to the
provisions of this Act all the citizens shall have the right
to information. The term “right to information” is
defined in Section 2(j) as the right to information
accessible under the Act which is held by or under the
control of any public authority.Having regard to
Section 3, the citizens have the right to access to all the
information held by or under the control of any public
authority except those excluded or exempted under the
Act. The object of the Act is to empower the citizens to
fight against corruption and hold the Government and
their instrumentalities accountable to the citizens, by
providing them access to information regarding
functioning of every public authority.
59. The effect of the provisions and scheme of the RTI Act
is to divide “information” into three categories. They are:
(i) Information which promotes transparency and
accountability in the working of every public authority,
KL,J
CRP No.1944 of 2022
32
disclosure of which may also help in containing or
discouraging corruption [enumerated in clauses (b) and (c)
of Section 4(1) of the RTI Act].
(ii) Other information held by public authority [that is,
all information other than those falling under clauses (b)
and (c) of Section 4(1) of the RTI Act].
(iii) Information which is not held by or under the
control of any public authority and which cannot be
accessed by a public authority under any law for the time
being in force.
Information under the third category does not fall within
the scope of the RTI Act. Section 3 of the RTI Act gives
every citizen, the right to “information” held by or under
the control of a public authority, which falls either under
the first or second category. In regard to the information
falling under the first category, there is also a special
responsibility upon the public authorities to suo
motu publish and disseminate such informationso that they
will be easily and readily accessible to the public without
any need to access them by having recourse to Section 6 of
the RTI Act. There is no such obligation to publish and
disseminate the other information which falls under the
second category.
63. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some
misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides
access to all information that is available and existing. This
KL,J
CRP No.1944 of 2022
33
is clear from a combined reading of Section 3 and the
definitions of “information” and “right to information”
under clauses (f) and (j) of Section 2 of the Act. If a public
authority has any information in the form of data or
analysed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant
may access such information, subject to the exemptions
in Section 8 of the Act. But where the information
sought is not a part of the record of a public authority,
and where such information is not required to be
maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of
the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation
upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non-
available information and then furnish it to an
applicant. A public authority is also not required to furnish
information which require drawing of inferences and/or
making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide
“advice” or “opinion” to an applicant, nor required to
obtain and furnish any “opinion” or “advice” to an
applicant. The reference to “opinion” or “advice” in the
definition of “information” in Section 2(f) of the Act,
only refers to such material available in the records of
the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a
public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and
opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and
should not be confused with any obligation under the
RTI Act.”
KL,J
CRP No.1944 of 2022
34
xviii) It is relevant to note that Section 2(j) defines right to
information which also includes right to obtain certified copies. Such
certified copies are to be issued by a Public Information Officer who
is to be appointed under Section 5 of the Act, 2005.Therefore, under
the RTI Act, 2005 unless the information sought by general public is
exempted under Section 8 of the RTI Act, 2005, the Public
Information Officer is duty bound to issue certified copies of
documents.
xix) ISSUE No.1
:
a) The question whether certified copies of documents obtained
under the RTI Act, 2005 fall within the definition of public documents
had fallen for consideration before various High Courts in the country.
b) In Bhaskar Rao (supra), a single judge of the High Court
of Andhra Pradesh held that documents obtained under RTI Act, 2005
are true copies in the form of Xerox copies and they cannot be equated
to certified copies under the Act, 1872. Therefore, copies obtained
under the RTI Act, 2005 are inadmissible. The relevant paragraph is
extracted below:
KL,J
CRP No.1944 of 2022
35
“21. Similarly, CMP No. 674 of 2009 is also filed for the
same purpose and the same Para 3 is reiterated. Reception
of additional evidence, it is well settled, must be in
accordance with the ingredients as prescribed under Order
41 Rule 27 CPC. The decision of the Supreme Court in K.
Venkataramaiah's case (supra), clearly shows that the
appellant must satisfy one of the ingredients thereof. I am
unable to appreciate any of the said ingredients in the
affidavit filed in support of the said application. It is not as
if that in spite of existence of due diligence, the appellant
was not able to trace out and produce these documents
before the trial Court. All the said documents relate to
proceedings before the ULC authorities and while the
appellant got marked Ex. A1 certified copy of the
declaration of the defendant under the Act, there is no
reason as to why he could not get the rest of the documents,
which he is now proposing to file by way of additional
evidence. Further, none of the said documents are
certified copies and only the Xerox copies of the
documents are certified as true copies under the Right
to Information Act. True copies cannot, therefore, be
equated to certified copies under the Evidence Act. The
affidavit does not state as to why these documents could
not be produced earlier nor it is supported by any other
sufficient cause as contemplated under Order 41 Rule 27
CPC. Further, the suit was disposed of as early as on
16.2.2001 and this appeal is pending since 2001. These
KL,J
CRP No.1944 of 2022
36
documents are, for the first time, sought to be produced in
the year 2009 without their being any averment in support
of the said documents. The documents filed in support of
CMP No. 674 of 2009 are only Xerox copies whereas the
documents filed along with CMP No. 1946 of 2009 are
Xerox copies of documents certified as true Xerox
copies by the Information Officer except document No.
2, which is a certified copy. The documents Nos. 13, 14
and 15 are office copies of legal notices and there is no
explanation as to why these documents could not be
produced before the trial Court.”
c) The said decision is not applicable to the facts of the case.
In that case, Xerox copies of the certified copies were filed and not the
certified copies themselves. In any case, perusal of the record in the
present case clearly shows that the documents filed in the present case
are certified copies issued by a Public Information Officer.
d) In Datti Kameswari (supra), a learned Single Judge of
Andhra Pradesh High Court held that Xerox copies of private
documents certified by a Public Information Officer are not certified
copies under the Act, 1872. However, Xerox copies of public
documents obtained under the RTI Act, 2005 and certified by a Public
KL,J
CRP No.1944 of 2022
37
Information Officer can be treated as certified copies of public
documents and no further proof of the same is required. The relevant
paragraph is extracted below:
“17. In view of the above analysis, the xerox copy certified
by the designated Public Information Officer under Right
to Information Act of the private documents are not
certified copies within the meaning of the provisions of
Section 65 of the Evidence Act. They are merely true
copies of the private documents available in the records of
the particular Department. The production and marking of
such copies is permissible only after laying a foundation for
acceptance of secondary evidence under clauses (a)(b) or
(c) of Section 65 of the Act. The condition prescribed under
the above cases (a), (b) or (c) of Section 65 of the Act have
to be fulfilled before marking the true copies obtained
under the Right to Information Act. However, the true
copies of public documents certified by the designated
Information Officer can be taken as certified copies of
the public documents.”
e) The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Narayan Singh v.
Kallaram
9
held that certified copies obtained under RTI Act, 2005 are
admissible as evidence under Section 65(f) of the Act, 1872. The
relevant paragraphs are extracted below:
9
. 2015 SCC OnLine MP 2812
KL,J
CRP No.1944 of 2022
38
“1. The singular question involved in this petition is
whether the certified copy of documents obtained under
Right to Information Act, 2005 (for brevity, the ‘Act of
2005’) can be admitted as secondary evidence?
8. Clause (f) of section 65 of Evidence Act makes it
crystal clear that a certified copy permitted under the
Evidence Act or by any other law in force can be
treated as secondary evidence. Right to Information
Act, in my view, falls within the ambit of “by any other
law in force in India”. The definition of “right to
information” makes it clear that certified copies of
documents are given to the citizens under their right to
obtain information. In my view, the Court below has
rightly opined that the documents can be admitted as
secondary evidence. I do not see any merit in the
contention that the documents obtained under the Act
of 2005 are either true copies or attested copies. The
definition aforesaid shows that the same are certified
copies. Even otherwise, it is interesting to note that
in Black's Dictionary, the meaning of “certified copy” is
as under:—
“Certified copy”-a copy of a document or record, signed
or certified as a true copy by the officer to whose custody
original is entrusted.”
KL,J
CRP No.1944 of 2022
39
Since the documents are covered under section 65 of the
Evidence Act, there was no need to compare the same
with the originals.”
f) The Punjab & Haryana High Court in Munshi Ram v.
Balkar Singh
10
, held that the information obtained under RTI Act,
2005 and responses of Public Information Officer shall be treated as
public documents under the Act, 1872. The relevant paragraph is
extracted below:
“8. In the two appeals bearing FAO No. 2705 and 2838 of
2013 filed by the owner, the most crucial issue is, whether
the driver had a valid driving licence. He did not join at the
time of trial and there was evidence brought through a
person from the DTO Office at Agra, which originally had
issued the licence making reference to the licence No. as
18690 of 2003 and making a verification to say that it had
not been issued in the name of Balkar Singh, who was the
driver. At the Appellate Court, the owner has filed an
application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC that has elicited
through RTI a response to say the licence number had been
wrongly given as 18690/Ag/2003 when it was actually
16690/Ag/2003 and that it had been issued in the name of
Balkar Singh. A response through RTI is of a public
10
. 2016 SCC OnLine P&H 11166
KL,J
CRP No.1944 of 2022
40
officer and it is a public document and would require
no further corroboration in the manner contemplated
under Section 77 of the Evidence Act. The document
must be taken to be true of what its recitals state. The
certified copy of the licence issued also shows that the
licence had been renewed at the DTO Office at Mansa on
26.08.2008, which was valid up to 19.09.2011. This also
shows that the driver had a valid driving licence at the
relevant time. I take the additional evidence as relevant and
important to decide that the owner and driver were entitled
to full indemnity. The award denying indemnity and
providing for a right of recovery against for the insurer is
set aside. The appeals filed by the owner and driver are
allowed. The amount deposited by the owner and driver at
the time of preferring the appeals are ordered to be returned
to the owner.”
g) Subsequently, the Punjab & Haryana High Court in
Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Sameem
11
held that
certified copies received under the RTI Act, 2005 cannot be
considered as public document, unless a person is examined to prove
that such copy was obtained under the RTI Act, 2005. The relevant
paragraph is extracted below:
11
. 2018 SCC OnLine P&H 556
KL,J
CRP No.1944 of 2022
41
“4. The first argument raised by the learned counsel is that
the appellant had exhibited RTI proceedings whereby the
concerned transport authority had verified that the driving
license was fake. As per him the reply received pursuant
to an application under the RTI Act would be a
certified copy of the public document under Section 76
of the Evidence Act and thus had to be taken that
driving license was fake. In this connection, he has
relied upon the judgment of this Court passed in the
matter of “Munshi Ram v. Balkar Singh, 2016 (2) PLR
526” where this Court has held that response of RTI
application would be covered under Section 77 of the
Evidence Act. In my opinion, there is no quarrel with
the proposition that a response elicited under the RTI
Act could be a certified copy of public document if the
document is covered under Section 74 of the Evidence
Act. But the issue in the present case is that these
documents were merely placed on record and no oral
evidence was led. Had it been a case where an employee
of the appellant had appeared to prove the RTI
application and the reply, it could have been held that
the driving license was fake.But in the absence of any
person who appeared to testify to this effect, and was
cross-examined, it would not be possible to come to the
conclusion that the document placed on record was
actually a public document. In the circumstances, the
KL,J
CRP No.1944 of 2022
42
argument that the driving license was proved to be fake has
to be rejected.”
h) This Court cannot agree with the finding in Sameem
(supra) that oral evidence has to be led by the Public Information
Officer responsible for issuing certified copies of the public
documents as Section 65(e) and Section 65(f) of the Act, 1872 read
with Sections 77 and Section 79 of the Act, 1872 make it clear that
certified copies of public documents can be directly read into
evidence, unless the same is objected by the other party. It is always
open for the other party to challenge the genuineness of certified
copies of public documents by leading evidence. Therefore,
according to this Court, certified copies of public documents obtained
under the RTI Act, 2005 are directly admissible as evidence.
i) In the present case, certified copies of register of sale of non-
judicial stamp papers maintained at a sub-registrar’s office and issued
by a Public Information Officer under the RTI Act, 2005 fall within
the definition of a public document under Section 74 of the Act, 1872.
The said sale register is required to be maintained at the sub-
registrar’s office under the Standing Orders issued by the Registration
KL,J
CRP No.1944 of 2022
43
& Stamps Department. The relevant Standing Orders are extracted
below:
“S.O.784. A Register of Records received from Vendors
in the following Proforma shall be maintained in the
Registering Office and the period for preservation of
this register is 12 years.
S.O.786. The Stamp Vendor should not prepare Annexures
l-A under Section 47 A of Indian Stamp Act, 1899, 37-G of
Income Tax Act, Patta Transfer Application, ‘M’ Notices,
Plaints, etc., accompanying a document.
S.O.787. Though Board Standing Orders of Andhra
Pradesh Stamp Manual contemplate sanction of temporary
licence regarding the disposal of stock of a stamp vendor
whose Licence lapsed or who died leaving stock or
otherwise yet it should be discouraged. The Stamp Vendor
or representative of the deceased Stamp Vendor may be
advised to apply for refund of excess stock.
S.O.788. i) The Sub-Registrars shall append a
certificate regarding the number of pages in the Sales
and Stock Register of the Stamp Vendors in their
respective jurisdictions.
ii) They shall collect records of the Stamp Vendors at
the end of each calendar year and scrutinize them. Any
grave irregularities noticed by them shall be submitted
to District Registrars concerned for initiating suitable
action.”
KL,J
CRP No.1944 of 2022
44
j) It is relevant to note that various decisions across the country
have held that public registers recording information under any law
will be treated as public documents. For instance, the Patna High
Court in Dwarka Prasad Agarwala v. Firm Lalchand Bhagat
Ambika Ram
12
held that money lenders’ register maintained at sub-
registrar’s office is a public document. The relevant paragraph is
extracted below:
“22. Apart from the provisions contained under the
Evidence Act, Mr. Sinha also referred to Section 4 of
the Bihar Money-Lenders Act, 1938, which provides
that (1) every Sub-Registrar shall maintain a register,
moneylenders in such form and containing such
particulars as may be prescribed. (2) Such register shall
be deemed to be a public document within the meaning
of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The above provision
in the Act itself, leaves no manner of doubt that the
register maintained in the office of the Sub-Registrar
shall be deemed to be a public document. Learned
counsel also pointed out, by reference to the Schedule
attached to Section 18 of the Bihar Money Lenders Act,
1939, which shows that Section 4 along with some other
sections of 1938 Act was not repealed by 1939 Act. In the
12
. 1973 SCC OnLine Pat 95
KL,J
CRP No.1944 of 2022
45
schedule in the column No. 4 “Extent of repeal”, is
mentioned “In Section 2, clauses (b), (c), (e), (k) and (n);
Chapter III, and Sections 22 and 26” whereas Chapter V of
1938 Act was wholly repealed. In my opinion, the
submission of Mr. Sinha is well founded. Ext. 26 was
admissible in evidence.”
k) Therefore, the sale register of stamp vendors maintained at
the sub-registrar’s office satisfies the definition of public document
under Section 74 as the same was maintained by the concerned
authority under the relevant Standing Orders in discharge of its
official duty and the said documents were accessible to general public
under the RTI Act, 2005.
xx) ISSUE No.2:
The information issued in the form of a letter by a Public
Information Officer under the RTI Act, 2005 falls within the
definition of a Public Document under Section 74 of the Act, 1872. A
Public Information Officer under the RTI Act, 2005 only issues
information in the form of letters based on the public records available
with him/her. As stated above, the definition of public documents is
wide enough to include letters issued by Public Information Officers
KL,J
CRP No.1944 of 2022
46
under the RTI Act, 2005. The said view was also expressed in
Munshi Ram (supra),
wherein it was held that responses received
under RTI Act, 2005 can be read as public documents. Therefore, in
the present case, the letter dated 18.04.2018 issued by the Public
Information Officer at the sub-registrar’s office, Sangareddy stating
that non-judicial stamp paper bearing number B355988 was issued to
one K. Bala Krishna and letter dated 14.03.2018 issued by Public
Information Officer stating that non-judicial stamp papers of 100
denomination bearing Nos. 352001 to 360000 were allotted to District
Registrar’s Office Sanagareddy constitute public documents.
7. Conclusion
i) According to this Court, information in the form of letters
and certified copies issued by Public Information officers under the
RTI Act, 2005 fall within the definition of public documents under
Section 74 of the Act, 1872. Such documents obtained under the RTI
Act,2005 can be proved by placing the certified copies on record and
the said certified copies shall be treated as secondary evidence under
Section 65 (e) of the Act, 2005. Under Section 79 of the Act, 1872,
KL,J
CRP No.1944 of 2022
47
the Courts shall presume the genuineness of such certified copies of
public documents obtained under the RTI Act, 2005, unless such
presumption is rebutted by leading evidence.
ii) The said aspects were not considered by the trial Court in
the impugned order. Therefore, the impugned order dated 26.04.2022
passed in I.A. No.230 of 2019 in O.S. No.116 of 2017 by the trial
Court is set aside and I.A. No.230 of 2019 filed by the petitioner -
defendant No.1 is allowed receiving the documents mentioned therein
subject to proof and relevancy.
iii) The present Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed.
However, there shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the
revision shall also stand closed.
_________________
K. LAKSHMAN, J
20
th
December, 2022
Note
: L.R. copy be marked.
(B/O.) Mgr
Legal Notes
Add a Note....