In a significant ruling on evidence admissibility, the Karnataka High Court has clarified that a photocopy of an unregistered partition deed cannot be marked as evidence in a civil suit without the production of the original document. The judgment underscores the importance of original document production under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, particularly when dealing with unregistered instruments affecting immovable property.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute revolves around a partition deed dated 28.01.2015 concerning 'A' schedule property located in Heggudlu village, Mudigere taluk, Chikkamagaluru district. The respondent-plaintiff, Krishnappa, filed O.S. No. 110/2016 before the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudigere, seeking a declaration that he is the absolute owner of the property as per the partition deed. The petitioner-defendant, Harish, contested the claim, denying the validity of the partition deed.
Key Facts
- The partition deed dated 28.01.2015 was allegedly executed between the parties, dividing the property.
- The deed was neither stamped nor registered, as required under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 for instruments affecting immovable property.
- During the examination-in-chief of PW-2, the plaintiff produced a photocopy of the partition deed, which the trial court marked as Ex.P10 subject to the production of the original.
- The petitioner-defendant objected to the marking of the photocopy, arguing that the document was inadmissible without the original.
Procedural History
- 2016: Respondent-plaintiff filed O.S. No. 110/2016 seeking declaration and partition of 'A' schedule property.
- 09.11.2021: Trial Court overruled the petitioner's objection and marked the photocopy of the partition deed as Ex.P10.
- 2021: Petitioner filed W.P. No. 23659/2021 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the trial court's order.
- 03.06.2026: Karnataka High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the impugned order.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought the setting aside of the trial court's order dated 09.11.2021, insofar as it related to the marking of the photocopy of the partition deed (Ex.P10) without the production of the original document.
The Legal Issue
The central question before the High Court was whether a photocopy of an unregistered partition deed could be marked as evidence in a civil suit without the production of the original document, particularly when the deed affects immovable property and is required to be registered under law.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner's counsel argued that the trial court erred in marking the photocopy of the partition deed (Ex.P10) without the production of the original. It was contended that:
- The partition deed was unregistered and unstamped, rendering it inadmissible under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 and Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
- A photocopy of a document cannot be marked as evidence without the original, as per the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
- The trial court's order violated the principles of evidence and procedural fairness.
For the Respondent
Though served, the respondent did not appear to contest the petition.
The Court's Analysis
The High Court meticulously examined the trial court's order and the legal principles governing the admissibility of evidence. The Court observed:
"It is to be noticed that the Trial Court has rightly recorded the reason that the covenants of the alleged partition deed dated 28.01.2015 indicate that there was earlier a partition and based on that, this deed was written, and proceeded to overrule the objection of the defendant-petitioner herein with regard to the registration of the instrument. It is to be further noticed that admittedly the instrument which the plaintiff intended to mark was a photocopy, which the Trial Court ought not have allowed to mark in the absence of production of the original before it."
The Court relied on the following legal principles:
- Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908: Mandates registration of instruments affecting immovable property, including partition deeds.
- Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899: Prohibits the admission of unstamped instruments in evidence.
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Requires the production of the original document for marking a copy as evidence, particularly under Section 64 (proof of documents by primary evidence) and Section 65 (cases in which secondary evidence may be given).
The Court held that the trial court's decision to mark the photocopy without the original was legally unsustainable, as it contravened the statutory requirements for evidence admissibility.
The Verdict
The Karnataka High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the trial court's order dated 09.11.2021 insofar as it related to the marking of the photocopy of the partition deed (Ex.P10). The Court directed that the plaintiff cannot mark the photocopy of the partition deed without producing the original document before the trial court.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Original Document Production Is Mandatory for Evidence Marking
- Practitioners must ensure that original documents are produced before marking photocopies as evidence, particularly for instruments affecting immovable property.
- Courts are likely to reject photocopies of unregistered or unstamped documents if the original is not produced, as this violates statutory provisions under the Registration Act, 1908 and Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Unregistered Partition Deeds Are Inadmissible
- Partition deeds affecting immovable property must be registered under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 to be admissible in evidence.
- Unregistered partition deeds, even if produced in original, may be rejected by courts unless they fall under exceptions such as family settlements or oral partitions.
Trial Courts Must Scrutinize Evidence Strictly
- Trial courts are expected to strictly scrutinize the admissibility of evidence, particularly when dealing with photocopies of unregistered or unstamped documents.
- Objections raised by parties regarding the inadmissibility of evidence must be carefully considered before marking documents, as failure to do so may lead to reversal on appeal.
