Marwari Kumhar v. B.G. Ganeshpuri AIR 2000 SC 2629

MARWARI KUMHAR V. B.G. GANESHPURI

ISSUE:

Whether the uncertified copy of the 1948 judgment could be admitted as evidence, considering that the original judgment was lost?
Whether the earlier judgment, which affirmed the appellants’ title to the property, is binding on the respondents, preventing them from challenging the appellants’ title in the current suit?
Whether the respondents could claim ownership of the property by adverse possession, despite the prior judgment that established the appellants’ title?

RULE:

Admissibility of Secondary Evidence: Under Section 65(c) of the Evidence Act, an uncertified copy of a public document is admissible as secondary evidence if the original is lost or destroyed.
Res Judicata: A final judgment is binding on the parties under the principle of res judicata, preventing them from re-litigating the same issue.
Adverse Possession: To claim ownership by adverse possession, the party must show that their possession was hostile and adverse after the relevant judgment.

FACTS:

The appellants, representing the Marwari Kumhar community of Dewas, used a temple and Dharamshala on the disputed property for religious functions and had engaged Ganeshpuri as a pujari.
After Ganeshpuri’s death on February 11, 1945, his son (Respondent No. 1) and wife (Respondent No. 2) claimed ownership of the property.
In December 1945, the appellants filed a representative suit in the Dewas Trial Court seeking a declaration of their title and rights to continue religious activities on the property. Respondent No. 1, a minor at the time, was represented by his mother.
The Dewas Trial Court decreed in favor of the appellants, holding that the respondents and their predecessor, Ganeshpuri, were merely pujaris without ownership rights.
The respondents appealed, and the appellate court reversed the trial court’s judgment in their favor.
On May 7, 1948, the Dewas High Court reinstated the trial court’s decree, affirming the appellants’ title to the property.
Despite the finality of the 1948 judgment, the respondents resumed claiming ownership. The appellants filed the present suit on December 7, 1960, in the Dewas Trial Court, seeking possession of the property. They also claimed that Respondent No. 1 had executed a “Nokarnama” (acknowledgment of service) on October 31, 1948, but original documents, including the earlier judgment and the Nokarnama, were lost.
The respondents contested the suit, asserting ownership by adverse possession and claiming that the suit was barred under limitation and Order 2 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).
On September 20, 1968, the Dewas Trial Court decreed in favor of the appellants, holding that their title was proven based on the earlier judgment and that the respondents’ adverse possession claim was unsubstantiated.
The respondents appealed, and on November 1, 1974, the first appellate court reversed the trial court’s decision, ruling that the earlier judgment was inadmissible in evidence due to the absence of a certified copy and that the respondents had established ownership through adverse possession.
The appellants filed a second appeal before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which dismissed their case on October 3, 1985, upholding the appellate court’s findings.
The appellants then moved the Supreme Court by way of a civil appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution, challenging the judgments of the appellate court and the High Court.

HELD:

The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the first appellate court (November 1, 1974) and the Madhya Pradesh High Court (October 3, 1985), restoring the Dewas Trial Court’s decree dated September 20, 1968.
The Court held that the uncertified copy of the 1948 judgment was admissible under Section 65(c) of the Evidence Act as secondary evidence, given that the original had been lost.
The earlier judgment conclusively affirmed the appellants’ title and was binding on the respondents under the doctrine of res judicata.
It was emphasized that the respondents had to prove when and how their possession became adverse after May 7, 1948. The respondents failed to provide any evidence to substantiate such a claim.
The Court dismissed the adverse possession argument, holding that the respondents’ possession remained that of pujaris and lacked the open, hostile, and adverse elements necessary to claim adverse possession.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, confirming the appellants’ title and granting them possession of the disputed property.