The Supreme Court held that certified copies of municipal documents, duly certified under Section 376 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, carry the same evidentiary value as originals. The failure of the Municipal Council to produce original records despite court orders justified drawing an adverse inference, and a registered sale certificate cannot be invalidated by a mere administrative resolution.
Facts Of The Case:
The dispute concerned two plots, No. 394 and 395, auctioned by the City Municipal Council (CMC). Respondent No. 2, Prabhudeva, purchased plot No. 395 in a 1973 auction, but his 1988 sale deed erroneously mentioned plot No. 394. Upon realizing this mistake, he applied for rectification in 1992. The CMC’s Junior Engineer inspected the site and confirmed the error, leading to a CMC Resolution dated 10th August 1992, rectifying the plot number in Prabhudeva’s documents to 395. The appellant, Basheera Khanum, had purchased plot No. 394 in a separate auction held on 24th June 1977, paid the bid amount, and was issued a sale certificate in 1980. However, in 1993, the CMC passed another Resolution cancelling Khanum’s sale certificate and asserting that plot No. 394 belonged to Prabhudeva. This prompted Khanum to file a suit for declaration and injunction against the CMC and Prabhudeva, claiming she was the rightful owner of plot No. 394. The core factual conflict arose from the CMC’s contradictory resolutions and its failure to produce the original 1977 auction records during the trial.
Procedural History:
The plaintiff-appellant filed an original suit seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction, which was decreed in her favor by the Trial Court in 1998. The first appellate court dismissed the defendant Municipal Council’s (CMC) regular appeal in 2006, affirming the trial court’s judgment. The Karnataka High Court, however, allowed the CMC’s second appeal in 2011, reversing the concurrent findings of the courts below and dismissing the plaintiff’s suit. The Supreme Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution, allowed the civil appeal in 2025, setting aside the High Court’s judgment and restoring the decree passed by the trial court and affirmed by the first appellate court.
READ ALSO :Supreme Court Cancels Top Cop’s Anticipatory Bail in Corruption Case, Stresses “No One Above Law”
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court observed that the High Court erred in its factual re-appraisal under Section 100 CPC, overlooking that certified copies of municipal documents hold full evidentiary value under Section 376 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, equating to originals. It held the appellant’s certified sale documents were prima facie valid, and the Municipal Council’s failure to produce original records despite court orders rightly warranted an adverse inference against it. The Court further ruled that a valid registered sale certificate cannot be nullified by a mere administrative resolution, deeming such action illegal and high-handed. The concurrent findings of the lower courts were thus restored, confirming the appellant’s title.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned judgment of the High Court. It restored the judgment and decree of the trial court, which had been affirmed by the first appellate court, thereby declaring the appellant as the rightful owner of plot No. 394 and granting a permanent injunction in her favor. The Court held that the certified documents produced by the appellant were admissible as evidence under statute and that the respondent Municipal Council’s failure to produce original records justified an adverse inference. No order as to costs was made.
Case Details:
Case Title: Basheera Khanum vs. The City Municipal Council & Anr. Citation: 2025 INSC 955 Appeal Number: Civil Appeal No. 9317 of 2014 Date of Judgement: July 31, 2025 Judges/Justice Name: Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Sandeep Mehta
Download The Judgement Here