JASWANT SINGHversusGURDEV SINGH & ORS.

                    [2011) 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 282


A                        JASWANT SINGH
                                 v.
                       GURDEV SINGH & ORS.
                (Civil Appeal Nos. 8879-80 of 2011)
                        OCTOBER 21, 2011
B
         [P. SATHASIVAM AND J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.]

       Evidence Act, 1872 - ss. 74, 76, 77 and 78 - Compromise
  Decree - Admissibility of - Held: Compromise Decree is a
C public document in terms of s. 74 - Certified copy of public
  document prepared uls. 76 is admissible in evidence uls. 77
  - A certified copy of a public document is admissible in
  evidence without being proved by calling witness - In the
  instant case, a decree was passed and drafted in the light of
o the compromise entered into between the parties and a
  certified copy of such document was produced before the
  Court, hence, there was presumption as to genuineness of
  such certified copy u/s. 78 - The compromise had merged into
  a decree and had become part and parcel of it - Judgment
E and decree passed by lower appellate Court as affirmed by
  High Court was based upon proper appreciation of the terms
  of compromise - Thus, interference by Supreme Court not
  called for.

       The appellant had earlier filed a suit for permanent
F injunction alleging himself to be in possession as a co-
  sharer of the suit land. In the said suit, the parties entered
  into a compromise and on the basis of the said
  compromise dated 27.11.1972, a decree was passed on
  08.12.1972.
G
          Subsequently, the appellant filed a civil suit for
      declaration to the effect that he was the ewner and in
    . possession of land situated in village Simbli, Tehsil and
      District Hoshiarpur and for correction of the revenue
H                               282
   JASWANT SINGH v. GURDEV SINGH & ORS.             283


entries in the Jamabandi Register wherein the A
respondents had been wrongly shown to be the owners.
Respondent No. 1 too filed a civil suit in the same Court.
The trial court decreed the suit filed by appellant and
dismissed the suit filed by respondent No.1. Respondent
No.1 filed appeal before the District Judge who allowed B
the same to an extent in view of the said compromise
dated 27.11.1972. The order was upheld by the High
Court.
   In the instant appeals interpretation of the said
compromise dated 27.11.1972 was in dispute.          C
    Dismissing the appeals, the Court
     HELD:1. It is seen that based on the terms arrived at
in the compromise and the decree dated 08.12.1972, the
mutation of the land situated in village Simbli was D
sanctioned. Even though the appellant raised an
objection as to the compromise dated 27.11.1972, (Ex.D3),
admittedly, the same has not been challenged by him
either in his plaint or in the suit filed by him or in the
wsitten statement filed in the suit. by the defendant- E
Respondent no.1. The compromise dated 27.11.1972 was
not challenged by the appellant rather it can be said that
he also relied upon it because the decree upon which he
claims ownership, has been passed only on the basis of
this compromise dated 27.11.1992 (Ex. D3). [Para 8] [288- F
E-G; 289-A-B]
     2. The compromise dated 27.11.1972 became the
basis of the decree dated 08.12.1972 passed by the Sub-
Judge, Hoshlarpur. As rightly observed by the courts
below, the compromise merged into a decree· and G
became part and parcel of it. To put it clear, the
compromise had become a part of the decree which was
passed by the court of Sub-Judge 1st Class, Jloshiarpur.
Hence, It was a public document in terms of. Section 74
of the Evidence Act, 1872 and certified copy of the public H
    284    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A  document prepared under Section 76 of the Act is
   admissible in evidence under Section 77 of the sai~ Act.
   A certified copy of a public document is admissible in
   evidence without being proved by calling witness.
   Inasmuch as the decree was passed and drafted in the
B light of the compromise entered into between the parties,
   viz. the plaintiff and the defendants, and a certified copy
   of such document was produced before the Court, there
   is presumption as to the genuineness of such certified
  copy under Section 78 of the Act The appellant did not
c challenge the genuineness of certified copy in any
   manner. Although the record of the Court was proved to
   be burnt in a fire in Judicial Record Room, Hoshiarpur
  on 16.06.1998, but the certified copy of the compromise
  (Ex.03), which is the part of the decree was obtained
  from the record room on 24.08.1988 and the Decree
0
  Ex.04 was got issued on 12.09.1984. In those
  circumstances, there is no reason to doubt the
  authenticity of compromise (Ex.03). Even otherwise, as
  rightly observed by the courts below, the appellant had
E not filed any other substitute of the document Ex.03, on
  the basis of which the decree (Ex.04) had been said to
  be passed. In view of the fact that the decree dated
  08.12.1972 clearly says that the suit is partly decreed in
  favour of the plaintiff as per the terms of the compromise
  placed on file, there can be no other way to interpret the
F decree except in terms and conditions of the
  compromise (Ex.03). [Para 9] [289-C-H; 290-A-B]
       3. The decree dated 08.12.1972 is to be read and
  interpreted in terms of the compromise (Ex.03) dated
G 27 .11.1972. The judgment and decree passed by the
  lower appellate Court as affirmed by the High Court is
  based upon proper appreciation of the terms of
  compromise (Ex.03) and this Court does not find any
  illegality or irregularity for interference. [Para 1O] [290-C-
H D]
   JASWANT SINGH v. GURDEV SINGH & ORS.                    285


    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.               A
8879-8880 of 2011.

    From the Judgment & Order dated 24.9.2007 of the High
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh .in 4473 & 4476 of
2004.
                                                                   B
   A.V. Palli, Rekha Palli, Atul Sharma, Anupam Raina for the
Appellant.

    Chinmay Khaladkar, Neelam Kalsi, Vimal Chandra S.
Dave for the Respondents.                                          c
    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

    P. SATHASIVAM, J. 1. Leave granted.

    2. These appeals are filed against the common final            o
judgment and order dated 24.09.2007 passed by the High
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Regular Second
Appeal (RSA) Nos. 4473 and 4776 of 2004 whereby the High
Court dismissed both the appeals filed by the appellant herein.

    3. Brief facts:                                                E

     (a) Jaswant Singh-appellant herein filed a Civil Suit being
No. 3 of 1997 in the court of Civil Judge, (Jr. Division)
Hoshiarpur for declaration to the effect that he was the owner
and in possession of land measuring 101 kanals 16 marlas           F
situated in village Simbli, H.B. No. 272, Tehsil and District
Hoshiarpur and for correction of the revenue entries in Column
No. 4 of Jamabandi Register wherein the respondents herein
had been wrongly shown to be the owners. It was claimed in
that suit that one Shri Hazara Singh, s/o Shri Nihal Singh was     G
the owner of the properties in village Simbli, Bajraur and
Chabbewal and after his death on 06.12.1972, by virtue of a
Will dated 05.12.1971, he transferred his properties in favour
of the appellant herein and the names of the respondents
                                                                   H
    286    SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A mentioned in the Jamabandi Register were wrong, illegal and
  liable to be corrected.

         (b) Even as early as on 05.06.1972, a civil suit was filed
   by the appellant herein in the court of sub-Judge, First Class,
   Hoshiarpur seeking permanent injunction against one Amar
8
   Kaur and others restraining them from interfering in the land
   situated in Simbli. During the pendency of the suit, the parties
  entered into a compromise dated 27 .11.1972 and on that
   basis the suit was decreed on 08.12.1972 and Mutation No.
   1536 was sanctioned in favour of the appellant herein with
C respect to 12-1/2 acres of land and the same was delivered to
  him which he had been in possession since 16.02.1973.
  Respondent No. 1 herein and others considered Jaswant Singh
  to be the owner of 8 acres and regarding the remaining 4-1/2
  acres of land, he was considered to be in mere permissive
D posseesion as it was given to him in lieu of his father's share
  in village Simbli, Chabbewal and Bajrawar for the purposes of
  cultivation only. The appellant took various steps to change the
  names in the revenue entries but during this whole period, the
  revenue entries remained unchanged in the name of Hazara
E Singh and hence the appellant herein filed civil suit for
  correction of those entries in Jamabandi.

       (c) Gurdev Singh-Respondent No. 1 herein, s/o Shri Karnail
  Singh filed a civil suit being RBT CS No. 145 of 1998 in the
F same Court and the matter was c!ubbed with Civil Suit No. 3
  of 1997 alleging therein that he was co-sharer in 1/4th share
  of land of Hazara Singh in village Simbli, Y. share in village
  Chabbewal and 1/4th share in village Bajraur as Hazara Singh
  was brother of their grand father. Vide order dated 20.04.2001,
G the civil Judge decreed the suit filed by Jaswant Singh-appellant
  herein and dismissed the suit filed by Gurdev Singh-
  Respondent No. 1 herein.

      (d) Aggrieved by the order dated 20.04.2001, Respondent
  No. 1 herein filed RBT Civil Appeal Nos. 68 & 75 of 07.06.2001/
H 04.06.2004 before the court of Additional District Judge (Ad-
    JASWANT SINGH v. GURDEV SINGH & ORS.                      287
              [P. SATHASIVAM, J.)
hoc), Fast Track Court-II, Hoshiarpur. Vide order dated A
28.09.2004, the Additional District Judge set aside the
judgment and order dated 20.04.2001 passed by the Civil
Judge (Jr. Division), Hoshiarpur and allowed the appeal filed
against Civil Suit No. 3 of 1997 to the extent that Jaswant
Singh-appellant herein is the owner of 8 acres of land and in 8
possession of 4-112 acres of land at village Simbli, in view of
compromise dated 27.11.1972. Feeling aggrieved, Jaswant
Singh-appellant herein filed RSA Nos. 4473 and 4776 of 2004
before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh
whereby vide common judgment and order dated 24.09.2007,
the High Court dismissed bdth the appeals. The said order is C
under challenge before this Court in these appeals by way of
special leave.

    4. Heard Mr. A.V. Palli, learned counsel for the appellant
and Shri Chinmay Khaladkar, learned counsel for the D
respondents.

      5. As stated earlier, the appellant filed a suit for permanent
injunction on 05.06.1972 alleging himself to be in possession
as a co-sharer of land situated in village Simbli. In the said suit, E
the parties entered into a compromise and on the basis of the
said compromise (Ex.P1 ), a decree was passed on
08.12.1972. The interpretation of the said compromise is in
dispute in the present proceedings. As per the appellant, he
became the owner and in possession of 12 Y2 acres of land
situated in village Simbli whereas as per the defendants, the F
plaintiff was admitted to be the owner of 8 acres of land situated
in village Simbli but was given possession of another land
measuring 4% acres of land in respect of his share situated in
village Chhabewal and Bajrawar. The compromise decree was
produced as Ex. P1 and the compromise deed was produced G
as Ex.D3.

     6. In order to substantiate his claim, the appellant-plaintiff
examined one Ajit Kumar Walia as PW-1 who deposed before
the Court that the file relating to the decree is not available since H
    288    SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A the record was burnt due to fire which broke out in the record
  room on 16.06.1998. Ashwani Kumar, PW-3, was also
  examined who in turn, deposed that Rupt No. 242 dated
  16.02.1973 is not available in his record despite best efforts
  made by him.
B       7. On the other hand, from the side of the respondent-
  Defendant, one Harbhajan Singh was examined as DW-1, who
  had endorsed the fact that a compromise had taken place
  between the parties and a decree was passed on the basis of
  that compromise. He along with Ohan Kaur, Pritam Kaur, Arjan
C Singh, Bakshish Singh and Karam Singh were the witnesses
  to the compromise. He asserted that as per the compromise,
  the plaintiff-Jaswant Singh was given only 8 acres of land in
  village Simbli. Ashwani Kumar, Patwari who was examined as
  DW-3, had brought Mutation No. 1536 of Hazara Singh,
D certified copy of which is produced as Ex. DW 3/A and the entry
  of mutation is at S.No. 22.

        8. It is further seen that based on the terms arrived at in
  the compromise and the decree dated 08.11.1972, the
E mutation of the land situated in village Simbli was sanctioned.
  Even though the appellant-Jaswant Singh raised an objection
  as to the compromise dated 27.11.1972, (Ex.03), admittedly,
  the same has not been challenged by him either in his plaint
  or in the suit filed by him or in the written statement filed in the
F suit by the defendant-Gurdev Singh. It is relevant to point out
  that in paragraph 3 of the plaint, the appellant-Jaswant Singh
  categorically mentioned that the parties have compromised and
  the decree dated 08.12.1972 was passed. In the written
  statement filed by the defendant-Gurdev Singh and others, it
  was categorically pleaded that the decree dated 08.12.1972
G was passed solely on the basis of the compromise entered into
  between the parties. The details of the compromise were also
  given in the written statement filed on 21.01.1999 by Gurdev
  Singh. Though in the replication to the amended written
  statement filed by Jaswant Singh, the terms and conditions of
H
    JASWANT SINGH v. GURDEV SINGH & ORS.                    289
              (P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
the compromise were not admitted but were also not denied A
and even it was pleaded that these terms and conditions of the
compromise are a matter of record. The compromise dated
27.11.1972 was not challenged by Jaswant Singh rather it can
be said that he also relied upon it because the decree upon
which he claims ownership, has been passed only on the basis
                                                               8
of this compromise dated 27.11.1992 (Ex. 03).

     9. Now the other question which remains to be decided is
whether the compromise Ex. 03 is admissible in evid.ence or
not? The compromise dated 27.11.1972 has become the basis
of the decree dated 08.12.1972 passed by the Sub-Judge,             C
Hoshiarpur. The perusal of Ex. 04 i.e., judgment and decree
were passed as per the terms and conditions of compromise
placed on file. As rightly observed by the courts below, the
compromise has merged into a decree and has become part
and parcel of it. To put it clear, the compromise had become a      0
part of the decree which was passed by the court of Sub-Judge
Isl 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       E
77 of the said Act. A certified copy of a public document is
admissible in evidence without being proved by calling witness.
Inasmuch as the decree was passed and drafted in the light of
the compromise entered into between the parties, viz., the
plaintiff and the defendants, the certified copy of such document   F
which was produced before the Court, there is presumption as
to the genuineness of such certified copy under Section 78 of
the Act. We have already noted that the appellant-Jaswant
Singh has not challenged the genuineness of certified copy in
any manner. Although the record of the Court has been proved        G
to be burnt in a fire in Judicial Record Room, Hoshiarpur on
16.06.1998, but the certified copy of the compromise (Ex.03),
which is the part of the decree was obtained from the record
room on 24.08.1988 and the Decree Ex.04 was got issued on
 12.09.1984. In those circumstances, there is no reason to doubt    H
   290      SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 15 (AOOL.) S.C.R.


A the authenticity of compromise (Ex.03). Even otherwise, as
  rightly observed by the courts below, the appellant-Jaswant
  Singh had not filed any other substitute of the document Ex. 03,
  on the basis of which the decree (Ex.04) had been said to be
  passed. As stated earlier, in view of the fact that the decree
B dated 08.12.1972 clearly says that the suit is partly decreed in
  favour of the plaintiff as per the terms of the compromise placed
  on file, there can be no other way to interpret the decree except
  in terms and conditions of the compromise (Ex.03).

        10. Thus, in view of the above discussion, it is to be held
C that the decree dated 08.12.1972 is to be read and interpreted
  in terms of the compromise (Ex.03) dated 27.11.1972. We are
  satisfied that the judgment and decree passed by the lower
  appellate Court as affirmed by the High Court is based upon
  proper appreciation of the terms of compromise (Ex.03) and
D do not find any illegality or irregularity for interference.

       11. Consequently, the appeals fail and are accordingly
   dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

   B.B.B.                                    Appeals dismissed.