Disposed

Rajeev Agrawal v. Ramkali Agrawal

Chhattisgarh HC13 Aug 2024WP227/696/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Chhattisgarh disposed of a writ petition assailing an order dismissing an application under Section 65(b) of the Evidence Act. Held that as the certified copy was already filed, genuineness is presumed under Section 79, permitting the party to argue applicability.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner at liberty to address applicability of guidelines; writ petition disposed of.

Rajeev Agrawal Vs Ramkali Agrawal — Chhattisgarh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

1 / 4

2024:CGHC:30726

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WP227 No. 696 of 2024

¶6

Rajeev Agrawal S/o Late Rambihari Agrawal Aged About 45 Years R/o Shankar Ward, Bhatapara, Tehsil Bhatapara, District Baloda BazarBhatapara (C.G.), Taluka Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) (Defendant No. 1)

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

1. Ramkali Agrawal W/o Late Rambihari Agrawal Aged About 67 Years R/o Shankar Ward, Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) (Plaintiff No. 2)

¶10

2- Sanjay Bihari Agrawal S/o Late Rambihari Agrawal Aged About 50 Years R/o Shankar Ward, Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) (Plaintiff No. 3).

¶11

3- Pratibha Agrawal D/o Late Rambihari Agrawal W/o Rajkumar Agrawal Aged About 46 Years R/o Near Rest House, Rajim, District Gariyaband (C.G.) (Plaintiff No. 4).

¶12

4- Pratima Agrawal D/o Late Rambihari Agrawal W/o Ajay Agrawal Aged About 45 Years R/o Annapurna Dairy, Baniyapara, Purani Basti, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) (Plaintiff No. 5).

¶13

5- Sandeep Bihari Agrawal S/o Late Rambihari Agrawal Aged About 41 Years

¶14

2 / 4

¶15

R/o Shankar Ward, Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) (Plaintiff No. 6).

¶16

6- Animesh Agrawal S/o Late Avadh Bihari Agrawal Aged About 49 Years R/o Ward No. 12, Shivaji Chowk, Bus Stand, Rajim, District Gariyaband (C.G.) (Defendant No. 3),

¶17

7- Shyama Agrawal W/o Late Rajesh Agrawal Aged About 41 Years R/o Ward No. 12, Shivaji Chowk, Bus Stand, Rajim, District Gariyaband (C.G.) (Defendant No. 5).

¶18

8- Minor Kumari Niharika D/o Late Rajesh Agrawal Aged About 14 Years Minor, Through Her Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Shyama Agrawal W/o Late Rajesh Agrawal, R/o Ward No. 12, Shivaji Chowk, Bus Stand, Rajim, District Gariyaband (C.G.) (Defendant No. 6).

¶19

9- Minor Naman Agrawal S/o Late Rajesh Agrawal Aged About 5 Years Minor, Through His Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Shyama Agrawal W/o Late Rajesh Agrawal, R/o Ward No. 12, Shivaji Chowk, Bus Stand, Rajim, District Gariyaband (C.G.) (Defendant No. 7).

¶20

10- Chandralata Agrawal W/o Late Avadhbihari Agrawal Aged About 78 Years R/o Ward No. 12, Shivaji Chowk, Bus Stand, Rajim, District Gariyaband (C.G.) (Defendant No. 8).

¶21

... Respondents.

¶22

For Petitioner : Shri Manoj Paranjpe with Shri Shubhank Tiwari, Advocates.

¶23

Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board

¶24

14/08/2024

¶25

(1) This petition has been filed assailing the legality and validity of order dated 10.07.2024 passed by Civil Judge Senior Division, Bhatapara in

¶26

3 / 4

¶27

Civil Suit No.22/2017 whereby, application preferred by petitioner/Defendant No.1 under Section 65(b) of the Indian Evidence Act,1872(for short ‘the Act of 1872’) for calling Sub-Registrar, SubRegistrar Office, Bhatapara enabling him to prove the certified copy of the guidelines issued for the year 2024, has been dismissed.

¶28

(2) At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that the guidelines have been issued and the State has formulated the rules invoking the powers under Section 75 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 to carry out generally the purposes of the Act and Chhattisgarh Preparation and Revision of Market Value Guidelines Rules, 2000 have been notified vide notification dated 31.07.2000 in which, under Rule 4, a District Valuation Committee has been constituted and the Formats prescribed under Rule 7 for the market value guidelines have been issued by the District Valuation Committee Balodabazar-Bhatapara for the year 202425 and the certified copy has also been filed before the trial Court. He would further submit that Section 79 of the Act of 1872(old) prescribes the Presumption as to genuineness of certified copies. For the sake of brevity, the said section is quoted below:-

¶29

“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 authorized thereto by the Central Government]:

¶30

Provided that such document is substantially in the form and purports to be executed in the manner directed by law in that behalf.

¶31

The Court shall also presume that any officer by whom any such

¶32

4 / 4

¶33

document purports to be signed or certified held, when he signed it, the official character which he claims in such paper.”

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as per Section 77 of the Act of 1872, such certified copies may be produced in proof of the contents of the public documents or parts of the public documents of which they purport to be copies. He fairly admits that there is no need for calling Sub-Registrar for proving the contents of the said certified copy. He further submits that the petition may be disposed of by observing that at the time of arguments on such issues, the parties may be given liberty to refer such documents.

¶35

(3) After going though the impugned order, it is explicit that before the trial Court, a certified copy of the guidelines has already been filed therefore, the said Court, as per Section 79 of the Act of 1872 shall presume its genuineness for the proof of the contents in the said guidelines. Though the trial court has dismissed the said application by observing that copy of relevant year guidelines have not been filed, therefore, the petitioner/Defendant No.1 would be at liberty to address on such aspect as to whether such guidelines are applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case or not.

¶36

(4)With the aforesaid observation, petition is disposed of.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari)

¶39

Judge

¶40

Avinash

Rajeev Agrawal v. Ramkali Agrawal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeev Agrawal v. Ramkali Agrawal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

General Manager, South Eastern Coal Field Limited Vs Bhagwandeen

Fulbasiya @ Birajobai Vs Sunita

Smt. Lalit Vs Ramgovind

Anil Kumar Luniya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Satnami Samaj Samrupara Vs Ram Kumar Tandon

Sunny Kashyap Vs State of Chhattisgarh