Public Documents: Proof and Presumption on Truth

Certified copies of the public documents can be proved without formal proof.

Jojy George Koduvath.

Statutory Registers are Admissible under S. 35, Evidence Act

In terms of Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the entries made in the statutory registers are admissible in evidence (as they are declared to be relevant): CIDCO v. Vashudha Gorakhnath Mandevleka, 2009 (7) SCC 283.

Section 35 of the Evidence Act reads as under:

  • “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.

Under S. 114, Court can presume existence of Any Fact

Sec. 114 of the Evidence Act allows the Court to presume the existence of any fact. It reads as under:

  • “114. Court may presume existence of certain facts —The Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case. Illustrations ……”

Public Documents carry the ‘Presumption of Correctness‘

Following are the general rules:

1. Mere Execution Not Prove – Recitals Are Correct

Gangamma v. Shivalingaiah, 2005 9 SCC 359

  • “We may furthermore notice that even if a formal execution of a document is proved, the same by itself cannot lead to a presumption that the recitals contained therein are also correct. The mere execution of a document, h in other words, does not lead to the conclusion that the recitals made therein are correct, and subject to the statutory provisions contained in Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act, it is open to the parties to raise a plea contra thereto.”

 2. A Writing, By Itself, Is Evidence Of Nothing

The Bombay High Court, in Bank of India v. M/s. Allibhoy Mohammed, AIR 2008 Bom 81, it is held as under:

  • “33. The mode of proving the contents of the documents has been dealt with in Sections 61-66. As already stated hereinabove the production of the document purporting to have been signed or written by a certain person is no evidence of its authorship. It is necessary to prove their genuineness and execution. Proof, therefore, has to be given of the handwriting, signature and execution of a document. No writing can be received in evidence as a genuine writing until it has been proved to be a genuine one, and none as a forgery until it has been proved to be a forgery. A writing, by itself, is not evidence of the one thing or the other. A writing, by itself, is evidence of nothing, and therefore is not, unless accompanied by proof of some sort, admissible as evidence.” (Quoted in: Akbarbhai Kesarbhai Sipai VS Mohanbhai Ambabhai Patel, 2019-3 GLH 523)

But, Public Documents Stand on a Different Footing

Presumption of Correctness to Revenue Record Entries

In Vishwa Vijay Bharathi v. Fakhrul Hassan, (1976) 3 SCC 642, it is held as under:

  • “It is true that the entries in the revenue record ought, generally, to be accepted at their face value and courts should not embark upon an appellate inquiry in to their correctness. But the presumption of correctness can apply only to genuine, not forged or fraudulent, entries. The distinction may be fine but it is real. The distinction is that one cannot challenge the correctness of what the entry is the revenue record states but the entry is open to the attack that it was made fraudulently or surreptitiously. Fraud and forgery rob a document of all its legal effect and cannot found a claim to possessory title.”

In Karewwa v. Hussensab Khansab Khansaheb Wajantri, AIR 2002 SC 504 : (2002) 10 SCC 315 , it is held as under:

  • “We do not dispute the legal position as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant, but the presumption of correctness of an entry in revenue record cannot be rebutted by a statement in the written statement. Mere statement of fact in the written statement is not a rebuttal of presumption of correctness of an entry in the revenue record. The respondent was recorded as a tenant in the revenue record in the year 1973 and under law the presumption is that the entry is correct. It was for the appellant to rebut the presumption by leading evidence. The appellant has not led any evidence to show that entry in the revenue record is incorrect. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the contention.”

Our Apex Court, in Partap Singh v. Shiv Ram: AIR 2020 SC 1382, referring relevant provisions of Himachal Land Revenue Act, 1954 and Section 35 of the Evidence Act, held that Record-of-rights (Revenue document) carries the ‘presumption of correctness‘.

In The State of Haryana v. Amin Lal, 2024-4 CurCC(SC) 222, our Apex Court held as under:

  • “Revenue records are public documents maintained by government officials in the regular course of duties and carry a presumption of correctness under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. While it is true that revenue entries do not by themselves confer title, they are admissible as evidence of possession and can support a claim of ownership when corroborated by other evidence.”

In Inder Singh v. S. Raghbir Singh, AIR 1978 P&H 98, it is observed as under:

  • “The principle is that an official record, kept by a person, upon whom there is a public duty to make entries in it only after satisfying himself of the truth of those entries, is presumed to be correct. Such a document itself is evidence of the truth of its contents unless and until its falsity can be demonstrated by any of the various methods by which the evidentiary value of any public book, register or document may be attacked.”

See also: Kalyan Singh v. Chhoti, AIR 1990  SC 396 (Correctness of certified copies is presumed under Section 79).

Wajibul-Arz – Part of Settlement Record Presumption of Correctness Attached

The Privy Council has held in Fatea Chand v. Knshan, 10 ALJ 335, that wajibul-arz is a cogent evidence of rights as they existed when it was made.

The value of wazibul-aiz has been accepted to be very high in Anant Prasad v. Raja Ram, 1984 Supp AWC 194 and Yash Pat Singh v. Jagannath, 1946 ALJ 132.

In Avadh Kishore Das v. Ram Gopal, AIR 1979 SC 861, (1979) 4 SCC 790, it is observed as under:

  • “Wajibularz is village administration paper prepared with due care and after due enquiry by a public servant in the discharge of his official duties. It is a part of the settlement record and a statutory presumption of correctness attaches to it. Properly construed, this Wajibularz shows that the entire revenue estate of village Bahawalpura vests in the Temple or the Math as a juristic person.”

Revenue Record Presumption of Truth Attached

It is held in Krishnamurthy S.  Setlur v.  O.V.  Narasimha Setty, 2019-9 SCC 488, that revenue record proves possession. It is said as under:

  • “14. In our considered view, the High Court has not given any cogent reasons for coming to the conclusion that KS was not in possession of the property. His name figured in the revenue record from 1963 to 1981 as the owner in possession. Presumption of truth is attached to revenue record which has not been rebutted.”

Public document – Presumption (as to correctness) under Section 114(e)

  • Iqbal Basith v. N Subbalakshmi, (2021) 2 SCC 718.
  • Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Poonam Kesarwani , (2010) ACJ 1992 (Register of Driving Licences is a public document)

Where Truth of Public Document Disputed, it must be Established

In Om Prakash Berlia v. Unit Trust of India, AIR 1983 Bom 1, it is held that even when the contents of a document is proved, the truth of what the document states must be separately established. It was a case where truth of contents disputed. It is clear from this decision that the proposition as to proving truth is more apposite when a contention was raised regarding the correctness of truth of the documents. It was further held in this case that annual return under the provisions of Section 164 of the Companies Act was prima facie evidence of any matters directed or authorised to be inserted therein by the Companies Act. The said extract prima facie establishes the truth of the contents of its original.

It is made clear in Ramji Dayawala Vs. Invest Import: AIR 1981 SC 2085, as under:

  • “If the truth of the facts stated in a document is in issue mere proof of the handwriting and execution of the document would not furnish evidence of the truth of the facts or contents of the document. The truth or otherwise of the facts or contents so stated would have to be proved by admissible evidence, i.e. by the evidence of those persons who can vouchsafe for the truth of the facts in issue.”

Public Document Admissible per se without Formal Proof

In R. V. E. Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V. P. Temple, AIR 2003 SC 4548; 2003-8 SCC 752it is held as under:

  • “It is not disputed that the order of Charity Commissioner is a public document admissible in evidence without formal proof and certified copy of the document is admissible in evidence for the purpose of proving the existence and contents of the original. An order of Charity Commissioner is not per se the evidence of title inasmuch as the Charity Commissioner is not under the law competent to adjudicate upon questions of title relating to immovable property which determination lies within the domain of a Civil Court.”

In Kalyan Singh v. Chhoti, AIR 1990  SC 396, it is held that correctness of certified copies can be presumed under Section 79.

Certified copies of the public documents can be proved without formal proof. See:

  • Jaswant Singh v. Gurdev Singh, 2012-1 SCC 425 ,
  • Shyam Lal @ Kuldeep v. Sanjeev Kumar, AIR 2009 SC  3115; 2009-12 SCC 454
  • P. Purushottam Reddy v.  Pratap Steels LTD. , AIR 2002 SC 771; 2002-2 SCC 686
  • Harpal Singh and Another v. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1981 SC 361
  • Madamanchi Ramappa v. Muthalur Bojjappa, AIR 1963 SC 1633
  • Vijayamma v. G.  Venugopal, 2024-2 Ker HC 553,
  • Arti Meena v. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, 2020-1 SCT 1 (Raj).
  • Collector (L. A. ), South Andaman v. Himangshu Mondal, 2015-2 CalLT 1
  • Poddar Plantations Limited v. Thekkemariveettil Madhavi Amma, ILR 2014-1 Ker 813; 2014 1 KLT 439
  • Rajasthan State Road Trans. Corp. v. Nand Kishore, 2002 ACJ 1564 (Raj)
  • Md. Akbar v. State of A.P., 2002 CrLJ 3167 (And)

In Madamanchi Ramappa v. Muthalur Bojjappa (Gajendragadkar , J.), AIR1963 SC1633; 1964-2 SCR 673, it is held as under:

  • “9. … The document in question being a Certified copy of a public document need not have been proved by calling a witness.”(Referred to in Rangaraju v. Kannayal, 10 Jan 2012, (Mad).

In Harpal Singh and Another v. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1981 SC 361, it is held as under:

  • “3.…  We cannot agree with him for the simple reason that the entry was made by the concerned official in the discharge of his official duties, that it is therefore clearly admissible under Section 35 of the Evidence Act and that it is not necessary for the prosecution to examine its author ” (Quoted in: Manikanta v. State of Karnataka, 2024 Kar HC 21233)

In Shyam Lal @ Kuldeep v. Sanjeev Kumar, AIR 2009 SC  3115; 2009-12 SCC 454, it was observed as under:

  • “25. The findings of the learned District Judge holding Ex. P. 2 to be a public document and admitting the same without formal proof cannot be questioned by the defendants in the present appeal since no objection was raised by them when such document was tendered and received in evidence.
  • It has been held in Dasondha Singh and Others v. Zalam Singh and Others [1997(1) P.L.R. 735] that an objection as to the admissibility and mode of proof of a document must be taken at the trial before it is received in evidence and marked as an exhibit.
  • Even otherwise such a document falls within the ambit of Section 74, Evidence Act, and is admissible per se without formal proof“.

In Jaswant Singh v. Gurdev Singh, 2012-1 SCC 425, it is held that certified copy of a public document prepared under Section 76 of the Act, in terms of Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is admissible in evidence under Section 77 of the said Act, without being proved by calling witness. It is said as under:

  • “9. … To put it clear, the compromise had become a part of the decree which was passed by the court of Sub-Judge Ist Class, Hoshiarpur. Hence, it is a public document in terms of Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short ‘the Act’) and certified copy of the public document prepared under Section 76 of the Act is admissible in evidence under Section 77 of the said Act. A certified copy of a public document is admissible in evidence without being proved by calling witness.

See also the following cases where documents were accepted in evidence and acted upon on the basis of Section 35 Evidence Act:

  • Umesh Chandra v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1982 SC 1057 (admission forms as also the School’s register)
  • Harpal Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1981 SC 361 (certified copy of the birth register).

In Mosomat Jago Devi v. Mahabir Prasad Joshi, 2007-2 PCCR 164; 2007-3 PLJR 197 (Pat), it is held as under:

  • “It is true that this order-sheet is not an exhibited document but admittedly, it is a public document and since it is on record, as such judicial notice of the public document can be legally taken.”

In Silli Man Subba VS Man Bahadur Subba, 2015 ACJ 2575, it is pointed out as under:

  • “there was no necessity to examine the BDO to prove as the certificate would fall within the meaning of a public document as provided under Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and that judicial notice can be taken of it under Clauses (6) and (7) of Section 57 thereof.”

The Court can Take Judicial Notice of Public Records

In Kalpana Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 2018 SC 2493; 2018-7 SCC 1

  • “123. There can be no dispute that parliamentary standing committee report being in the public domain is a public document. Therefore, it is admissible under Section 74 of the Evidence Act and judicial notice can be taken of such a document as envisaged under Section 57(4) of the Evidence Act. There can be no scintilla of doubt that the said document can be taken on record.”

In Bangalore Development Authority v. Bhagavandas Patel 2017 2 AIR(Kar)(R) 695; ILR 2017 Kar 1319, it is held as under:

  • “25. The documents now sought to be produced along with I.A.2/2007 are public documents and merely compliment the exhibits already marked as D1 and D2. The same being public documents, this Court takes judicial notice of the same. This Court is of the considered opinion that further trial is not required as the fact remains that the veracity or authenticity of the said documents is not disputed by the plaintiff/respondent. Hence, the application I.A.2/2007 is accordingly, allowed and this Court takes judicial notice of the documents produced along with the said application.”

In Juhi Chawla v. Gangandeep Singh, 2020-1 MPWN 7, it is held as under:

  • “8. The Income Tax Return of the respondent cannot be treated a public document and the Court cannot take judicial notice of the same.”

Rama Association Private Limited v. Delhi Development Authority, 1998-74 DLT 653 (Del), it is held as under:

  • “It is a document emanating from DDA and it is a document for public use and, therefore. Court can take judicial notice of it and can look into the contents of the Master Plan.”

In Income Tax Officer v. Abdul Majeed, 1987-2 KLT 303 (KT Thomas, J.) observed as under:

  • “Proceedings under S.279(1) of the Act are official acts and the document evidencing the proceedings of the Commissioner is a public document, the production of which would be sufficient to enable the court to take judicial notice thereof. Even if the document containing the proceedings of the Commissioner has not been formally marked as an exhibit, the document cannot be overlooked by the Criminal Court. No formal proof through oral evidence is required for a public document. In Income tax Officer, Hassan v. Dharmchand Multanmul (1972 (Vol. 86) ITR 70) a similar situation arose. In Chat case the counsel for the accused pointed out at the time of argument that there was no sanction to prosecute him and hence the complaint was liable to be dismissed. At that stage, the Income-tax Officer filed an application for recalling the first witness for the purpose of formally proving the proceedings by which sanction was accorded. As the Magistrate did not accede to the request, the matter was taken up before the High Court of Mysore. It was observed by the High Court that recalling of the witness for the purpose of proving the sanction was not necessary “as it would be open to the Magistrate to look into the sanction produced by the prosecution”. I respectfully agree with the aforesaid reasoning of the learned single judge of the Mysore High Court. I therefore hold that the acquittal, on the ground that there was no formal proof of sanction, cannot be sustained.”

In Mangilal v. Mankunwarbai, 1986-2 MPWN 231, it is pointed out as under:

  • “Ex. D – l being a public document, the Court below should have taken a judicial notice of the same.”

Official Document Relevant by itself, and no other proof required

In Shiv Ram v. Shiv Charan Singh, AIR 1964 Raj 126, it is observed as under:

  • “Where Section 35 properly comes into play, an entry made by a public servant in any public or official book in the discharge of his official duty becomes relevant by itself, and no other proof of such entry is required as a matter of law by our Evidence Act, but this, does not exclude the possibility that such an entry may become admissible otherwise if it is properly proved to have been made by a person ordinarily competent to make it.” (Quoted in Mayadhar Nayak vs Sub-Divisional Officer, Jajpur, AIR 1982 Ori 221).

Author Need Not be Examined for Proving Document Admissible under S. 35

In Harpal Singh v. State of H. P. , AIR 1981 SC 361; 1981-1 SCC 560, it was held as under:

  • “A certified copy of the relevant entry in the birth register which shows that Saroj Kumari, who according to her evidence was known as Ramesh during her childhood, was born to Lajwanti wife of Daulot Ram on 11-11-1957. Mr. Hardy submitted that in the absence of the examination of the officer/chowkidar concerned who recorded the entry, it was inadmissible in evidence. We cannot agree with him for the simple reason that the entry was made by the concerned official in the discharge of his official duties, that it is therefore clearly admissible under Section 35 of the Evidence Act and that it is not necessary for the prosecution to examine its author.”

Must be shown, Prepared in discharge Official Duty

In Ravinder Singh Gorkhi v. State of U.P. (2006) 5 SCC 584, it was observed as under:

  • “23. Section 35 of the Evidence Act would be attracted both in civil and criminal proceedings. The Evidence Act does not make any distinction between a civil proceeding and a criminal proceeding. Unless specifically provided for, in terms of Section 35 of the Evidence Act, the register maintained in the ordinary course of business 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, inter-alia, such register is kept would be a relevant fact. Section 35, thus, requires the following conditions to be fulfilled before a document is held to be admissible thereunder:
  • it should be in the nature of the entry in any public or official register;
  • it must state a fact in issue or relevant fact;
  • entry must be made either by a public servant in the discharge of his official duty, or by any person in performance of a duty specially enjoined by the law of the country and
  • all persons concerned indisputably must have an access thereto.”

In Durairaju v. Neela, 1976 CriLJ 1507, Ratnavel Pandian, J., it was held that it was the duty of the court, before making the order for maintenance, to find though in a summary manner, the paternity of the child. It was held that Ex. P. 1, the intimation received by the Municipality from the Government Hospital, and Ex. P. 2 a copy of the birth extract made on the basis of Ex, P. 1, were not sufficient to raise Presumption of paternity for,

  • the medical officer who made the entries in Ex. P. 1 had not been examined. 
  • The author of the information is not mentioned in Ex. P. 1. PW 2 herself had not stated that she mentioned to the doctor that the child was born to her through the petitioner. 

In the absence of such evidence, the document could not by itself prove the relevant entries made thereon. It was also observed that to prove a document under Section 35 it must be shown that the document was prepared by a public servant in discharge of his official duty or by any person in performance of a duty specially enjoined by the law.

If a Document Ex Facie Requires Truth, No Question of Shifting Burden. 

The proposition, ‘Presumption Shifts Burden of Proving Registered Documents‘, is not an invariable rule. If it comes out from the pleadings or issues that the burden is upon the person who produced the registered document to prove its truth, the presumed presumption will not help him.

  • For example – The executant of the registered deed would not have executed such a deed (he being abroad), in all probabilities (regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct etc.) as revealed from the pleadings or documents produced; or, its untrue nature can be ‘judicially noticed’(ex-facie).

Court can take Judicial Notice; But, Parties should get Opportunity to Challenge

In Poddar Plantations Limited v. Thekkemariveettil Madhavi Amma, ILR 2014-1 Ker 813; 2014 1 KLT 439, it is held as under:

  • “70. There could be no dispute that the court has the power to take judicial notice of public records. Assuming that the settlement register referred to by the Tribunal is a public record, it is not as if the contents of the settlement register cannot be disputed. Parties should get opportunity to challenge correctness of the contents of the document. The 2nd defendant did not get that opportunity. Hence the Tribunal was not correct in relying on the settlement register as referred to in its order.”

Public Register is Public Document; A Certificate, Not

In Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Poonam Kesarwani , (2010) ACJ 1992, the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court considered whether the letter/certificate issued by Regional Transport Officer coluld be considered to be a public document as defined in Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act  which required no proof.  It is pointed out –

  • ‘A public document is a document that is made for the purpose of public making use of it. When a public officer is under a duty to make some entries in the official book or register, the entries made therein are admissible in evidence to prove the truth of the facts entered in the official book or register. The entries are evidence of the particular facts which was the duty of the officer to record. The law reposes confidence in the public officer entrusted with public duties and the law presumes that public officers will discharge their duties with responsibility. A driving licence is issued under Chapter II of the Act. Section 26 of the Act makes it mandatory for the State Government to maintain a register known as State Register of Driving Licences. The entries with regard to issuance or renewal of driving licence by the licensing authorities which contains particulars of the licence and the licence holder are entered by the Regional Transport Officer/the licensing authority in discharge of their official duty enjoined by law. The State Register of Driving Licences is record of the acts of public officers. The State Register of Driving Licences is a public record. It can be inspected by any person. We are of the considered opinion that the State Register of Driving Licences is a public document as defined by Section 74 of the Evidence Act.
  • 10. Section 76 of the Evidence Act gives the right to obtain a certified copy of a public document which any person has a right to inspect on payment of fee. A certified copy of the entries made in the public record is required to be issued on payment of fee in Form 54 as laid down by rule 150 (2). Form 54 being a certified copy of a public document, namely, the State Register of Driving Licences need not be proved by examining a witness. Once a certified copy of the entries made in the register maintained under Section 26 (1) read with rule 23 is issued in Form 54 it is admissible in evidence under Section 77 of the Evidence Act, and no further proof of Form 54 by oral evidence by examining witnesses is required.
  • 12. The aforesaid information is in the form of a letter written to the investigator appointed by the insurance company. It cannot be deemed to be a certificate or certified copy in Form 54 of the Rules. Deposit of fee would not convert the letter into a certificate under rule 150. Therefore, the aforesaid letter issued by the Regional Transport Officer, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) was required to be proved by the insurance company before the Tribunal by oral evidence by examining witnesses. Insurance company had failed to lead any evidence to prove the aforesaid letter by examining witnesses before the Tribunal. The Tribunal rightly refused to place reliance on the letter dated 20.4.2005.”

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Poonam Kesarwani , (2010) ACJ 1992 is quoted and followed in New India Assurance Company Ltd.  v. Indu Bala, ILR 2016-3 HP 1829 (Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.).

Proof on Date of Birth

In Ravinder Singh Gorkhi v. State of U. P. , AIR 2006 SC 2157; 2006 5 SCC 584,  it was observed that there was nothing on record to show that the said date of birth was recorded in a register maintained by the school in terms of the requirements of law as contained in Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, and thereafter it was held as under:

  • “22. Section 35 of the Evidence Act would be attracted both in civil and criminal proceedings. The Evidence Act does not make any distinction between a civil proceeding and a criminal proceeding. Unless specifically provided for, in terms of Section 35 of the Evidence Act, the register maintained in ordinary course of business 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, inter alia, such register is kept would be a relevant fact. Section 35, thus, requires the following conditions to be fulfilled before a document is held to be admissible thereunder :
  • (i) it should be in the nature of the entry in any public or official register;
  • (ii) it must state a fact in issue or relevant fact;
  • (iii) entry must be made either by a public servant in the discharge of his official duty, or by any person in performance of a duty specially enjoined by the law of the country; and
  • (iv) all persons concerned indisputably must have an access thereto.”

In Ravinder Singh Gorkhi v. State of U.P. (2006) 5 SCC 584, the proof of copy of a school leaving certificate was also considered under Section 35 of the Evidence Act and it is held as under:

  • “17. “The school leaving certificate was said to have been issued in the year 1998. A bare perusal of the said certificate would show that the appellant was said to have been admitted on 01.08.1967 and his name was struck off from the roll of the institution on 06.05.1972. The said school leaving certificate was not issued in ordinary course of business of the school There is nothing on record to show that the said date of birth was recorded in a register maintained by the school in terms of the requirements of law as contained in Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act. No statement has further been made by the said Head Master that either of the parents of the appellant who accompanied him to the school at the time of his admission therein made any statement or submitted any proof in regard thereto. The entries made in the school leaving certificate, evidently had been prepared for the purpose of the case. All the necessary columns were filled up including the character of the appellant. It was not the case of the said Head Master that before he had made entries in the register, age was verified. If any register in regular course of business was maintained in the school; there was no reason as to why the same had not been produced.
  • 19. The school leaving certificate was not an original one. It was merely a second copy. Although it was said to have been issued in July 1972, the date of issuance of the said certificate has not been mentioned. The copy was said to have been signed by the Head Master on 30.04.1998. It was accepted before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr on 27.01.1999. The Head Master has also not that the copy given by him was a true copy of the original certificate. He did not produce the admission register.
  • 23. Section 35 of the Evidence Act would be attracted both in civil and criminal proceedings. The Evidence Act does not make any distinction between a civil proceeding and a criminal proceeding. Unless specifically provided for, in terms of Section 35 of the Evidence Act, the register maintained in ordinary course of business 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, inter alia, such register is kept would be a relevant fact.Section 35, thus, requires the following conditions to be fulfilled before a document is held to be admissible thereunder : (i) it should be in the nature of the entry in any public or official register;; (ii) it must state a fact in issue or relevant fact; (iii) entry must be made either by a public servant in the discharge of his official duty, or by any person in performance of a duty specially enjoined by the law of the country; and (iv) all persons concerned indisputably must have an access thereto.
  • 35. We have not been shown as to whether any register was required to be maintained under any statute. We have further not been shown as to whether any register was maintained in the school at all. The original register has not been produced. The authenticity of the said register, if produced, could have been looked into. No person had been examined to prove as to who had made entries in the register. The school leaving certificate which was not issued by a person who was in the school at the time when the appellant was admitted therein, cannot be relied upon.”

In Sushil Kumar v. Rakesh Kumar, (2003) 8 SCC 673, it is held that transfer certificate issued by a Primary School does not satisfy the requirement of Section 35 of Indian Evidence Act. Para 32 and 33 of the judgment read as under:

  • “32. Under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, a register maintained in terms of a statute or by statutory authority in regular course of business would be relevant fact. Had such a vital evidence been produced, it would have clinched the issue. The respondent did not choose to do so.
  • 33. In the aforementioned backdrop the evidence brought on record are required to be considered. The Admission Register or a Transfer Certificate issued by a Primary School do not satisfy the requirements of Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act. There is no reliable evidence on record to show that the date of birth was recorded in the school register on the basis of the statement of any responsible person.”

Age of a Person in a School Register – Not Much Evidentiary Value

In Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit ,1988 Supp. SCC 604, it was held as under:

  • “To render a document admissible 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

Entry on Caste in School Admission Registers- Relevant and Admissible

In Desh Raj v. Bodh Raj, AIR 2008 SC 632; 2008-2 SCC 186, it is held as under:

  • “Having regard to the provisions of Section 35, entries in school admission registers in regard to age, caste etc., have always been considered as relevant and admissible. [See : Umesh Chandra vs. State of Rajasthan, 1982 (2) SCC 202 and State of Punjab vs. Mohinder Singh, – 2005 (3) SCC 702]. In Kumari Madhuri Patil vs. Addl. Commissioner, [1994 (6) SCC 241], this Court observed that caste is reflected in relevant entries in the public records or school or college admission register at the relevant time and certificates are issued on its basis.”

In Dalchand Mulchand v. Hasanbi AIR 1938 Nag 152 (Vivian Bose and Puranik JJ.) held as under:

  • “The initial burden of proving execution of a document when it is denied is upon the person alleging execution. But if nothing else is known the mere fact that a document is admitted to bear a certain signature and that it comes from proper custody ought to be enough to raise an inference that it was signed with the intention of execution. This inference arises in India directly from Sec. 114, Evidence Act. Persons do not ordinarily sign documents without intending to execute them: that is not the common course of human conduct, nor yet the common course their public or private business. Consequently if any person wants to rely on an exceptional circumstance, if he wants to show that in some particular instance the ordinary rule was abrogated surely he must prove it and thus the burden shifts on him”.

1910 SETTLEMENT REGISTERS of Travancore, Basic Record

The Kerala High Court held in Mohandas v. Santhakumari Amma, 2018-3 KLT 606 as under:

  • “We notice that, a new survey and settlement was undertaken in the erstwhile Travancore State for the purpose of putting in place a sound Revenue administration. Accordingly, it appears that a complete survey and reassessment of the entire State ’embracing an accurate measurement, demarcation, mapping and valuation of properties of every description and a registration of titles, as the basis of a sound Revenue Administration’ was carried out. On the basis of such a statement a proclamation was issued by the Maharaja of Travancore on 14 th Kumbhom 1061 corresponding to 24th February 1886.”

If Settlement Register says Government Land, Petitioner to Establish Title

In Sahana Industries v. State of Kerala (2021 KHC OnLine 7110), Kerala High Court (Devan Ramachandran, J.) held (October 11, 2021) as under:

  • “… If the Settlement Register shows this land to be Government land, then certainly, the petitioner is obliged to establish their title over the property through competent documents”.

Chitharanjan v. State of Kerala – 0n Settlement Register

In Chitharanjan v. State of Kerala, WP(C) No. 25830/2010 (2025:KER:5422) 24.01. 2025 (Harisankar V. Menon, J.) it is pointed out as under:

  • “7. …. In the Settlement Register  at Ext. R1(a), there is no dispute that the entire properties under old Survey No. 2211 having an extent in excess of 107 Acres are shown as “puramboke“….
  • 8…. As regards the petitioner in WP(C) No. 25830 of 2010 also, the title is traceable to some documents of the Attingal Sub Registry of the yeas 1959, 1957 and 1061. But, it is categorically found that even in these documents, there is no mention as to the receipt of pattayam with respect to the property in question.
  • 11. …. As already noticed, the settlement register describes the property as “Puramboke”. … In view of the discussions made above, I am of the opinion that the contentions raised by the learned Senior Government Pleader with respect to the malpractices committed, cannot be brushed aside.
  • 13….. However, I notice that WP(C) No.25830 of 2010 the entry with respect to the Settlement Register is to be considered at first, which admittedly is against the petitioner. The case of the State is that some foul play is carried out subsequently at the instance of those interested and therefore, the subsequent entries cannot be acted upon.
  • 14. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader relied on Vallikunnil Janaki Amma and Ors. v. Sree Amruthamangalam Kshethram Moorthi, Kozhikode and Anr. [2014 (1) KHC 57], which laid down the principle with respect to the acceptability/relevance of the Settlement Register. As already noticed, I have found that the Settlement Register describes the property under old Survey No. 2211 as “Puramboke”. To the same effect is the judgment of a learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 20520 of 2021 dated 11.10.2021. This Court further notices the judgment of the Apex Court in Suraj Bhan and Ors. v. Financial Commissioner and Ors. [(2007) 6 SCC 186] which held that mere entry in the revenue records does not confer title on a person. As already noticed, in view of the entries in the Settlement Register, the requirement of an appropriate assignment cannot be lost sight of.”

In Travancore Devaswom Board v. Mohanan Nair M.N.,  (2013) 3 KLT 132, (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J; A.V. Ramakrishna Pillai, J), it is observed as under:

  • “52. As far as the property herein is concerned, the land register and the settlement register produced herein are relevant. The property having the entire extent of 2.26 acres is described as ‘kavu’ (holy grove) in the settlement register. In the land register also it is described as ‘kshethram irippu sthalam’ (property where the temple is situated). No other document or other evidence is there to prove the contrary. Therefore, these documents will definitely show that the item of property will fit in with the requirement of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act.”

Document Admissible Under Section 35, May (still) Require Corroboration

In Satpal Singh v. the State of Haryana, (2010) 8 SCC 714, it is held as under:

  • “22. Therefore, a document may be admissible, but as to whether the entry contained therein has any probative value may still be required to be examined in the facts and circumstances of a particular case. The aforesaid legal proposition stands fortified by the judgments of this Court in
    • Ram Prasad Sharma Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1970 SC 326;
    • Ram Murti Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1970 SC 1029;
    • Dayaram & Ors. v. Dawalatshah, AIR 1971 SC 681;
    • Harpal Singh & Anr. v. State of HP, AIR 1981 SC 361;
    • Ravinder Singh Gorkhi v. State of U.P., (2006) 5 SCC 584;
    • Babloo Pasi v. State of Jharkhand, (2008) 13 SCC 133;
    • Desh Raj v. Bodh Raj, AIR 2008 SC 632; and
    • Ram Suresh Singh v. Prabhat Singh, (2009) 6 SCC 681.
  • In these cases, it has been held that even if the entry was made in an official record by the official concerned in the discharge of his official duty, it may have weight but still may require corroboration by the person on whose information the entry has been made and as to whether the entry so made has been exhibited and proved. The standard of proof required herein is the same as in other civil and criminal cases. Such entries may be in any public document; i.e. school register, voters list or family register prepared under the rules and regulations, etc, in force, and may be admissible under Section 35 of the Evidence Act as held in Mohd, Ikram Hussian v. State of U.P. and Santenu Mitra v. State of W.B.”

Are the Pleadings In a Previous Case Public Documents?

Can the Certified copies be filed as Public Documents?

Divergent opinions.

Sec. 74 0f the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, defined Public Documents in Section 74. It reads as under:­

  •        “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 offices, 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.”

After referring Sec. 74, the Punjab High Court in Bawa Singh VS Harnam Singh, 2008-4 CivCC 376; 2008-4 LawHerald 2891; 2009-5 RCR(Civ) 183, held as under:

  • “9. pleadings of a party, does not fall in any of the public documents as specified under Section 74 of the Act and, thus, comes within the purview of private document as all documents other than specified in Section 74 of the Act, are private documents. Therefore, certified copy of a written statement allegedly filed by the plaintiff in an earlier suit, is not per se admissible in evidence.”

The Kerala High Court taking a contra view in Usha Kumari v. Santha Kumari, 2023-3 ILR(Ker) 307; 2023-4 KHC 507; 2023-4 KLT 291, it is observed as under:

  • “11. … On the question as to whether the pleadings in a suit are public documents, there have been divergent opinions.
  • The Calcutta, Bombay and Orissa High Court have taken the view that pleadings are not public documents
    • [See: Shazada vs. Wedgeberry, (1873) 10 Bengal Law Reports App. 31
    • Akshoy Kumar vs. Sukumar, AIR 1951 Cal 320 (321),
    • Smt. Shamlata Wd/o Manohar Raut vs. Vishweshara Jukarami Giripunje and Others, AIR 2008 Bom. 155,
    • Bijayanti Nanda vs. Jagannath Mahaprabhu Marfat Adhikari Mahanta Bansidhar Das Goswami, AIR 2014 Ori. 128].
  • In Saritha S. Nair vs. Union of India and Another, 2022 (5) KHC 527, this Court referring to Section 74(1)(iii) of the Act held that pleadings, affidavits and petitions filed in Court are not acts of the Court or record of such acts.
  • However, a Full Bench of the Madras High Court expressed a contrary view in Katikineni Venkata Gopala Narasimha Rama Rao vs. Chitluri Venkataramayya, AIR 1940 Mad 768. The full bench observed,
    • “As the learned Judges who have made the reference have pointed out, a plaint or a written statement has always been regarded by this Court as forming part of the record of a case and a public document of which an interested party may obtain a certified copy.”
  • In Chandulal and Another vs. Bhagwan Dass and Others, (2010) 49 RCR (Civil) 136, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held certified copy of written statement to be proceedings of judicial record and per se admissible under Section 74 of the Evidence Act.
  • In Jagdishchandra Chandulal Shah vs. State of Gujarat, 1988 Supreme (Guj) 139, the Gujarat High Court held that certified copy of a plaint is a public document.
  • 12. It is relevant to note that, the divergent views expressed by various Courts as above, have been made with reference to Section 74(1)(iii) of the Evidence Act. While some High Courts took the view that pleadings will fall within the scope of “acts and record of acts” of the Court, a contrary view was taken by other Courts.
  • 13. According to me, what Section 74(1)(iii) refers to are, acts of the Court which are documents by themselves viz. orders, judgments and the like, and records of the acts of the Courts are, the documents wherein the acts of the Court have been recorded viz. deposition of the witnesses. Incidentally it is to be noticed that, Section 3 of the Evidence Act defines “Document” as, “any matter expressed or described upon any substance by means of letters, figures or marks, or by more than one of those means, intended to be used, or which may be used, for the purpose of recording that matter.” Section 74(1)(iii) will not take within its sweep the pleadings of the parties they being neither an act of the Court nor a document recording an act of the Court.
  • 14. However, Section 74(2) of the Act is of significance. The applicability of the same in respect of pleadings, have not gone into the zone of consideration in the cases referred to supra. It reads, “Public records kept in any State of private documents.” Clause (2) of Section 74 refers to private documents kept as public records. The term “kept” can only be understood to mean, “maintained.” The Apex Court in Gurudial Singh and Others vs. Raj Kumar Aneja and Others, AIR 2002 SC 1003 held that “a pleading once filed is part of the record of the Court and cannot be touched, modified, substituted, amended or withdrawn except by the leave of the Court.” Though pleadings of a party are private in character, once filed in Court, the Court is to retain custody of the same. Therefore, it becomes a record maintained by the Court which is a public office. Records held by a public office partake the character of public records. Therefore pleadings, which are private documents, once filed in Court, form part of public records kept in the Court, thus attracting clause 2 of Section 74 of the Act. The Apex Court in Anitha Malhotra v. Apparel Export Promotion Council and Ors., AIR 2012 SC 31, referring to Section 74(2) of the Act held that, the annual returns filed under the Companies Act, 1956 though a private document, it forms part of the public records in terms of Section 74(2) of the Act. In Narendra Prasad and Others vs. Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Limited and Others, 2015 (5) L.W. 221, the High Court of Madras held that, once a plaint is registered and taken on file by the Court it partakes the character of a public document.
  • 15. Rules 113 and 240 of the Civil Rules of Practice, Kerala, Rule 226 of the Criminal Rules of Practice, Kerala, and Rule 129 of the Rules of the High Court of Kerala, 1971, enable even strangers to the proceedings to search for and obtain certified copy of the records and documents filed in Court, of course, subject to orders of the Court. This is in tune with Section 76 of the Evidence Act which provides that certified copies of public documents are liable to be issued to any person who has a “right” to inspect such documents. As held in Rasipuram Union Motor Service Ltd. vs. Commr. of Income Tax, Madras, AIR 1957 Mad. 151, it is the person who has a right to inspect, that is given the right to obtain copy.
  • 16. Thus, it could be concluded that, pleadings of parties once filed in Court becomes part of the public records maintained by the Court and thus, is a public document within the purview of Section 74(2) of the Evidence Act. A similar view was also taken by the Gauhati High Court in Narattam Das and Others vs. Md Masaddar Ali Barbhuiya and Others, (1991) 1 Gau LR 197 (DB). Though the Patna High Court in Gulab Chand vs. Shree Karam Lal, AIR 1964 Pat 45 (DB) has taken the view that plaint is not a public document within 74(2) of the Act, for the reasons stated supra, I am unable to concur with the same.”

End Notes

Presumption on REGISTERED Deeds – Both Execution & Genuineness

The party in whom the ‘burden of proof’ rests can rely on ‘presumption’ of registration, for proving a deed.

  • E.g.: The certificate endorsed on a registered deed by the registering officer is a relevant piece of evidence for proving its execution – Piara v. Fatnu, AIR 1929 Lah 711.

Our Apex Court in Suraj Lamp and Industries Private Limited v. State of Haryana, (2009)7 SCC 363, it is held as under:

  • “15. The Registration Act, 1908, was enacted with the orderliness, discipline and public notice in regard to transactions relating to immovable property and protection from fraud and forgery of documents of transfer. This is achieved by requiring compulsory registration of certain types of documents and providing for consequences of non-registration.”

It being presumed to be VALID & CORRECT, it further gives a presumption as to truth of the contents also, under Sec. 114 Evid. Act (regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct etc.). In Akbarbhai Kesarbhai Sipai v Mohanbhai Ambabhai Patel, 2019-3 GLH 523, it is observed (J.B. Pardiwala, J.) as under:

  • “Registration provides safety and security to transactions relating to immovable property, even if the document is lost or destroyed. It gives publicity and public exposure to documents thereby preventing forgeries and frauds in regard to transactions and execution of documents.”

There being presumption as to ‘VALID EXECUTION  & CORRECTNESS’ and thereby presumption as to truth of the contents also, the onus of proof is shifted upon the party who challenges the presumption as to truth of the contents.

  • (Note: it is held in Vimal Chand Ghevarchand Jain v. Ramakant Eknath Jajoo (SB Sinha, J.), 2009- 5 SCC 713, that there is also a presumption on registered deed that the “transaction is a genuine one”

Similar Articles:

How to Subscribe ‘IndianLawLive’? Click here – “How to Subscribe free “

Read in this cluster (Click on the topic):

Civil Suits: Procedure & Principles

Book No, 1 – Civil Procedure Code

Principles and Procedure

PROPERTY LAW

Title, ownership and Possession

Adverse Possession

Land Laws/ Transfer of Property Acta

Land Reform Laws

Power of attorney

Evidence Act – General

Sec. 65B

Admission, Relevancy and Proof

Law on Documents

Documents – Proof and Presumption

Interpretation

Contract Act

Law on Damages

Easement

Stamp Act & Registration

Divorce/Marriage

Negotiable Instruments Act

Criminal

Arbitration

Will

Book No. 2: A Handbook on Constitutional Issues

Religious issues

Book No. 3: Common Law of CLUBS and SOCIETIES in India

Book No. 4: Common Law of TRUSTS in India

Unknown's avatar

Published by sajikoduvath

Leave a Comment