Khaled Bin Awaz Awaz Bin Mohammad through Gpa Holder Hasan Bin Awas Awas Bin Mohmmad and Another v. Vijayprakash Onkarlal Agrawal and Others

Bombay HC21 Jan 2026WP/696/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Exhibition of certified copies of 30-year-old sale deeds; certified copies as public documents; exhibiting/marking versus proof of contents; objection to contents for want of proof; Regular Civil Suit No. 105 of 2015, Parbhani; Exhibit 104; Appaiya v. Andimuthu @ Thangapandi, Civil Appeal No. 14630/2015; writ petition dismissed by Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench), S. G. Chapalgaonkar, J., 21.01.2026.

What did the court decide?

Endorsing the Trial Court's reliance on the Supreme Court decision in Appaiya, certified copies of sale deeds are public documents and can be exhibited directly, particularly when the documents are 30 years old. ¶4

Khaled Bin Awaz Awaz Bin Mohammad through Gpa Holder Hasan Bin Awas Awas Bin Mohmmad and Another vs Vijayprakash Onkarlal Agrawal and Others — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2026:BHC-AUG:3205

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

944 WRIT PETITION NO. 696 OF 2026

¶4

KHALED BIN AWAZ AWAZ BIN MOHAMMAD THROUGH GPA HOLDER HASAN BIN AWAS AWAS BIN MOHMMAD AND ANOTHER

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

VIJAYPRAKASH ONKARLAL AGRAWAL AND OTHERS

¶7

Mr. D. V. Katneshwarkar, Advocate for the Petitioners

¶8

CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. DATED : 21^st JANUARY, 2026

¶9

P. C. :-

¶10

The present Writ Petition takes exception to the order dated 03.11.2025 passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Parbhani below Exhibit 104 in Regular Civil Suit No. 105 of 2015, whereby application filed by Respondent to exhibit certified copy of sale deed has been allowed.

¶11

The Petitioners are original defendant Nos.4 and 5 in Regular Civil Suit No. 105 of 2015 pending before Civil Judge, Senior Division, Parbhani. The Respondent/original plaintiff instituted suit claiming relief of declaration of ownership and perpetual injunction in respect of suit property. Alternatively, he claims the relief of demarcation of boundaries of land Gut No. 149 and recovery of possession of encroached area. Plaintiff recorded his evidence and relied on certified copies of sale deeds dated 11.05.1977,

¶12

1 of 3

¶13

944 WP 696.2026.odt

¶14

02.05.1978 and 08.08.1988. The Trial Court exhibited those documents.

¶15

Mr. Katneshwarkar, learned Advocate appearing for Petitioners, submits that evidence of plaintiff was already over. The sale deeds were not tendered by Respondent during oral evidence. Reference to those sale deeds was not made during course of oral evidence. Merely because certified copies of sale deeds are filed those could not have been exhibited without proof of contents.

¶16

Having considered submissions advanced and perusal of reasons adopted by Trial Court, it can be observed that all certified copies of 30 year old sale deeds were produced by Respondent. The Trial Court has rightly relied upon observations of Supreme Court in case of Appaiya Vs. Andimuthu @ Thangapandi and others, Civil Appeal No. 14630/2015 to hold that certified copies of sale deeds are public documents and can be exhibited directly. Particularly when documents are 30 years old. The Trial Court has rightly clarified that mere exhibit of documents cannot be treated as proof of contents thereof and admission of documents in evidence shall be subject to reliability. Apparently, interest of Petitioner is duly protected under impugned order. The Petitioners may raise objections regarding contents of sale deeds for want of proof. The trite that mere exhibiting documents would not

¶17

2 of 3

¶18

944 WP 696.2026.odt

¶19

prejudice interest of Petitioners.

¶20