: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.245 OF 2009 Ramesh Jamsingh Pawar, Decd., Thru Komal Ramesh Pawar & Ors.... Appellants V/s. Bhagwansing Devsing Bagul ... Respondent Mr. A.R. Shaikh for the Appellants. Mr. Balkrishna Joshi for the Respondent. CORAM: SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 4 th AUGUST, 2009. P.C.: 1. The Second Appeal has been filed by the heirs of the original defendant contending that the decisions of both the courts below are erroneous. It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that the trial court and the appellate court have improperly appreciated the evidence on record and have concluded that the original defendant had admitted that a gift deed was executed by one Shamkuvarbai in favour of the original plaintiff under which the suit property was gifted to him. : 2 : 2. The courts below have concurrently held that there was an admission on the part of the defendant in his written statement to the effect that there was a gift deed executed by Shamkuvarbai. The written statement has been produced before me and it indicates that Shamkuvarbai got annoyed with the father of the defendant No.1 because she did not succeed in some legal proceedings and, therefore, to take vengeance upon the father of defendant No.1 and with a view to commit a fraud, executed a gift deed on 10th October, 1978. This statement made in the written statement has been considered as an admission on the part of the defendant No.1 regarding the execution of the gift deed. It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that this can hardly be said to be an admission. Reliance is placed on the judgment of a Division Bench of this court which has considered the provisions of Order 12 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code and has spoken about the circumstances in which a decree on admission can be passed. : 3 : 3. A Division Bench in the case of Shantez & Anr. vs. Applause Bhansali Films Pvt. Ltd. Co. & Ors. [reported in 2009 (4) Mh.L.J. 37] has opined that a decree on admission can be passed provided the ingredients specified in Order 12 Rule 6 are satisfied. The admission which must be made in the pleadings or otherwise must be unambiguous and a definite admission. The court has observed that it would not be proper for any court to pass a decree on an inference drawn and in the absence of any unambiguous and definite admission. 4. In the present case, in my opinion, the decree has not been passed merely on the statement made in the written statement and, therefore, it cannot be said to be a decree on admission. Other material on record has been considered. 5. A submission was made on behalf of the appellants herein that the gift deed which was produced before the trial court was not in the : 4 : original but a photocopy of the certified copy of the gift deed. It is submitted that under the Indian Evidence Act, such a document cannot be produced as that would mean that secondary evidence was being led. It is also submitted that an application had been made by the plaintiff on 4th January, 1999 for leading secondary evidence. That application had been rejected by the trial court. The order of the trial court was challenged in this court in Civil Revision Application No.946 of 1999. The provisions of Section 65(c) were invoked by the plaintiff and it was contended that the plaintiff should be permitted to lead secondary evidence under Section 65(c) of the Indian Evidence Act as the original of gift deed had not been received. This court rejected the Writ Petition and held that the plaintiff was not entitled to lead secondary evidence. 6. Whether production of a certified copy of a registered gift deed can be called secondary evidence is a question which must be answered. : 5 : Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act defines public documents. Sub-section (2) of this section indicates that private documents which are kept in public records are considered as public documents. Certified copies of such public documents can be produced under Section 76. The manner of proving such document is mentioned in Section 77. Under Section 68, the manner of proving the execution of a document required by law to be attested has been stipulated. While considering the provisions of Section 68, the Supreme Court in the case of Surendra Kumar vs. Nathulal & Anr. [reported in (2001) 5 SCC 46] has in a similar matrix of facts observed that on a plain reading of the proviso to Section 68, it is manifest that a registered deed of gift can be received in evidence without examining one of the attesting witnesses if the person who has executed the gift deed has not specifically denied having executed it. The certified copy of the registered deed of gift was produced before the trial court in that case. The Supreme Court : 6 : observed that the certified copy of the registered gift deed need not be proved by examining an attesting witness. 7. In the present case, an attesting witness has been examined and he stated that the gift deed was executed in his presence. In these circumstances, the courts below have concurrently held that the gift deed had been proved. In my view, therefore, no substantial questions of law arise which are required to be considered by this court. 8. The Second Appeal is dismissed. 9. The learned Advocate for the appellants prays that the interim order which was granted earlier be continued for eight weeks. Accordingly, the interim order dated 22nd June, 2009 to continue for a period of eight weeks from today. .......