In Brief
The appellant purchased suit property from Puliyankaladi via a registered sale deed (Ext.A5) dated 1963. He claimed entire ownership. Defendants, neighbors, disputed and claimed portions. The trial court and first appellate court awarded the appellant full title based on Ext.A1 (an 1928 sale deed showing Puliyankaladi's acquisition) and Ext.A5. The High Court reversed, holding the certified copy of Ext.A1 inadmissible and reducing entitlement to 96 cents. The Supreme Court held that certified copies of public documents registered with Sub-Registrars are admissible under Evidence Act Sections 61, 63, 65(e), 76, 77, 79 and Registration Act Section 57(5), without requiring the original or independent witness corroboration. Since Ext.A1 established the vendor's title and Ext.A5 transferred the same property, the concurrent findings were correct. The appeal was allowed and the High Court judgment set aside.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.