Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, as plaintiff, filed Regular Civil Suit No.41 of 2012 seeking declaration of ownership and perpetual injunction over two agricultural lands. The petitioner claimed that the respondent/defendant originally owned the suit properties and sold them to one Khandu Undade via two registered sale deeds. The petitioner later purchased the properties from Khandu Undade. During trial, the petitioner sought to mark the two sale deeds as exhibits. The respondent admitted execution of the sale deeds but denied their contents and object. The trial court, by order dated 05.04.2023, rejected the petitioner's application to mark the documents, reasoning that since the contents were denied, the documents could not be exhibited until proved. The petitioner challenged this order by way of writ petition. The High Court framed three issues: (1) what if execution of a registered sale deed is admitted but contents and object are denied; (2) evidentiary value of a document given identification number; and (3) appropriate stage to give identification to a document. The Court held that when execution is admitted, the document must be marked as an exhibit; its evidentiary value is to be decided at the final stage. The trial court's order was set aside, and the trial court was directed to mark the sale deeds as exhibits and proceed with the suit. The Court clarified that marking does not decide admissibility or proof of contents, and the respondent can raise objections at the time of final arguments.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Marking of Exhibits - Admission of Execution but Denial of Contents - When execution of a registered sale deed is admitted, the document must be marked as an exhibit even if its contents or object are denied; the evidentiary value is to be assessed at the final stage of the suit. The trial court erred in refusing to mark the documents. (Paras 2-7)
B) Evidence Act - Evidentiary Value of Registered Documents - A registered document carries presumptive value under the Registration Act, 1908, but its evidentiary weight is determined at trial after considering objections. Marking as an exhibit does not decide admissibility or proof of contents. (Paras 5-7)
C) Civil Procedure - Stage of Marking Documents - The appropriate stage to give identification number to a document is at the time of its production, subject to proof and relevance being decided later. The trial court cannot postpone marking indefinitely. (Paras 6-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a trial court can refuse to mark a registered sale deed as an exhibit when its execution is admitted but its contents and object are denied; what is the evidentiary value of a document given an identification number; and what is the appropriate stage to give identification to a document in a suit.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the trial court's order dated 05.04.2023, and directed the trial court to mark the two sale deeds as exhibits and proceed with the suit in accordance with law. The Court clarified that marking does not decide admissibility or proof of contents, and the respondent can raise objections at the time of final arguments.
Law Points
- Registered document
- admission of execution
- denial of contents
- marking of exhibit
- identification number
- evidentiary value
- stage of marking
- Civil Procedure Code
- Evidence Act
Case Details
Writ Petition No.8498 of 2023
Mr. Sunil V. Kurundkar for petitioner, Mrs. Surekha G. Chincholkar for respondent
Prop. Ganga Ginning and Pressing Factory, Owner – Vaibhav s/o. Chandrakant Kotalwar
Nandu s/o. Gangaram Wadje
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil writ petition challenging trial court's order refusing to mark registered sale deeds as exhibits in a suit for declaration of ownership and injunction.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought to set aside the trial court's order dated 05.04.2023 and direct the trial court to mark the two sale deeds as exhibits.
Filing Reason
Trial court rejected petitioner's application to mark two registered sale deeds as exhibits on the ground that their contents were denied by the respondent.
Previous Decisions
Trial court (Civil Judge, J.D., Loha) by order dated 05.04.2023 in Regular Civil Suit No.41 of 2012 rejected the petitioner's application to mark the sale deeds as exhibits.
Issues
Whether a trial court can refuse to mark a registered sale deed as an exhibit when its execution is admitted but its contents and object are denied?
What is the evidentiary value of a document given an identification number in a suit?
What is the appropriate stage to give identification to a document in a suit?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that since execution of the sale deeds was admitted, they should be marked as exhibits; refusal to mark would prejudice the petitioner's case.
Respondent argued that since contents and object of the sale deeds were denied, they could not be marked until proved by evidence.
Ratio Decidendi
When execution of a registered document is admitted, the document must be marked as an exhibit even if its contents or object are denied; the evidentiary value is to be assessed at the final stage of the suit. Marking as an exhibit does not decide admissibility or proof of contents.
Judgment Excerpts
When execution of a registered sale deed is admitted, the document must be marked as an exhibit even if its contents or object are denied; the evidentiary value is to be assessed at the final stage of the suit.
Marking as an exhibit does not decide admissibility or proof of contents.
The trial court erred in refusing to mark the documents.
Procedural History
Petitioner filed Regular Civil Suit No.41 of 2012 in the Court of Civil Judge, J.D., Loha, Dist. Nanded. During trial, petitioner sought to mark two registered sale deeds as exhibits. Respondent admitted execution but denied contents. Trial court by order dated 05.04.2023 rejected the application. Petitioner filed Writ Petition No.8498 of 2023 in the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, challenging the order. The High Court heard the petition and delivered judgment on 02.04.2026.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 13 Rule 1, Order 18 Rule 4
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Section 17, Section 58, Section 61, Section 62, Section 64, Section 65
- Registration Act, 1908: Section 17, Section 48, Section 49, Section 50, Section 51, Section 52, Section 53, Section 54, Section 55, Section 56, Section 57, Section 58, Section 59, Section 60, Section 61, Section 62, Section 63, Section 64, Section 65, Section 66, Section 67, Section 68, Section 69, Section 70, Section 71, Section 72, Section 73, Section 74, Section 75, Section 76, Section 77, Section 78, Section 79, Section 80, Section 81, Section 82, Section 83, Section 84, Section 85, Section 86, Section 87, Section 88, Section 89, Section 90
