2017(6) Kar. L.J. 138 (DB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD BENCH
(DIVISION BENCH)
DUNDAPPA
Versus
Smit. SUNDRAWWA AND ANOTHER
(A) KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT, 1964, Sections 135 and 136-Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 96 read with Order XLI, Rule 1 and Order XLI, Rule 22 – Bar of suits Suit for declaration regarding ownership – Maintainability in view of remedy in the form of revision before the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner, under Section 136 of the Act Held, maintainable, in view of proviso to Section 135 of the Act which enables institution of suit by a person who is aggrieved as to any right of which he is in possession, by an entry in any record or register maintained by Revenue Authorities under Chapter XI of the Act – Similarly, even Section 62(b) of the Act also enables private parties to institute a civil suit for establishing their private right, although it may be affected by any entry in any land record. (paras 10 and 11)
(B) INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872, Section 65 – Admissibility of a document as secondary evidence – Adoption deed – Where the original documents were not produced at anytime – Nor where any factual foundation was laid for giving secondary evidence – It is impermissible to allow a party to adduce secondary evidence – In factual matrix, held, while certified copy of adoption deed was admitted in evidence and marked as Ex. P. 8 in Court below, without any objection from the defendant’s side – Same defendant now in its appeal cannot raise any contention of plaintiff not laying foundation to lead secondary evidence. (paras 16, 17 and 18)