1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- CIVIL SECOND APPEAL No. 338 of 2006 SMT.SUNDER BAI V/S SHRI LAL Mr. NK RASTOGI, for the appellant / petitioner Mr. LR MEHTA and Mr. MAHENDRA TRIVEDI, for the respondent Date of Order : 25.9.2007 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. ORDER ----- Heard learned counsel for the appellant. It is contended that the plaintiff has failed to prove the gift deed Ex.-1, and therefore, the decree could not be passed. I have considered the submissions, and have gone through the record. From the record it transpires that during trial on 15.1.1990 application was filed under O. 13 Rule 2, and certified copy of the gift deed was produced which copy was obtained way back on 18.4.1951. Then, on 15.1.1990 an application under Sections 65 and 66 was filed contending that the original is not available, therefore, the plaintiff may be allowed to lead secondary evidence. This application was allowed. On the same day the plaintiff's statement were recorded as P.W.1 who has proved 2 the certified copy as Ex.-1, and to that evidence there is no cross-examination whatever apart from the fact that the defendant while in the witness box has not denied Ex.-1 even by a bare word of mouth, and in cross-examinatin he has deposed ignorance. In this background a look at the provisions of Section 74 read with Section 77 of the Evidence Act shows that by force of those provisions, the document is clearly required to be held to be proved. That being the position, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned decrees. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /sushil/