Is Section 67 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam Applicable to Registered Sale Deeds?

The dispute concerned ownership over 13 cents of immovable property situated in Kerala. Originally, half of the property belonged to Rajeswari, while the remaining half belonged to Ashok Kumar and Lalitha under a partition deed executed in 1978.

Subsequently:

• Rajeswari sold her 6.5 cents to Vanajakshi through a registered sale deed dated 19 December 1978.
• On 31 December 1979, Vanajakshi along with Ashok Kumar and Lalitha jointly executed another registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, transferring the entire 13 cents.

Years later, in 1996, Rajeswari executed yet another sale deed in favour of the defendants regarding the same 6.5 cents.

Relying upon this subsequent sale deed, the defendants took possession of the property and began construction.

The plaintiffs therefore instituted a civil suit seeking:

• declaration of title,
• recovery of possession,
• cancellation of the subsequent sale deed executed in 1996, and
• permanent injunction.

The defendants denied that Rajeswari had ever executed the earlier sale deed in favour of Vanajakshi and alleged that the document relied upon by the plaintiffs was fabricated.

Findings of the Trial Court

The Trial Court accepted the plaintiffs’ evidence.

It held that:

• the earlier sale deed executed in 1978 was genuine;
• the subsequent sale deed executed in 1996 was void;
• the plaintiffs were the lawful owners; and
• the defendants were liable to restore possession after removing the constructions raised by them.

Accordingly, the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs.

Findings of the First Appellate Court

The First Appellate Court reversed the Trial Court. It held that:

• the plaintiffs had failed to satisfactorily prove execution of the 1978 sale deed,
• the testimony of the attesting witness examined by the plaintiffs was unreliable, and
• consequently, the plaintiffs had failed to establish title.

The suit was dismissed.

High Court’s View

The High Court allowed the Second Appeal. It interpreted the proviso to Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act (now Section 67 of BSA) to mean that:

• the expression “specifically denied” requires more than a mere denial in the written statement;
• denial must arise in proceedings instituted by the executant himself;
• unless such proceedings exist, production of the original registered sale deed is sufficient proof.

Accordingly, the High Court restored the Trial Court’s decree in favour of the plaintiffs.

Analysis by the Supreme Court

Applicability of Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act (67 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam)

The Court observed that it applies only where:

• the law requires a document to be attested; and
• proof is sought through examination of at least one attesting witness.

The provision therefore does not apply to every registered document. Its operation depends upon whether the document is required by law to be attested.

Why Sale Deeds Are Outside the Scope of Section 68 of IEA/ Section 67 of BSA

The Court referred to Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. A sale of immovable property worth ₹100 or more must be effected through a registered instrument.

However, Section 54 nowhere requires a sale deed to be attested.

Therefore:

• registration is mandatory;
• attestation is not.

Since Section 67 of BSA applies only to documents required by law to be attested, a registered sale deed falls outside its ambit.

Supreme Court’s Interpretation

The Court held that the High Court committed a fundamental legal error by applying Section 68 of IEA (now Section 67 BSA) to a registered sale deed.

The Supreme Court observed:

“Section 68 as a whole has no application to a registered sale deed.”

It explained that there was absolutely no reason for the High Court to examine the proviso to Section 68 because the main provision itself was inapplicable. Once the principal provision does not apply, its proviso cannot independently govern the document.

Meaning of “Specifically Denied”

The High Court had held that:

• denial in a written statement is insufficient; and
• the executant must institute an independent proceeding or counterclaim.

The Supreme Court rejected this interpretation. However, it went one step further. It held that the entire discussion regarding “specific denial” was unnecessary because Section 68 of IEA (Section 67 BSA) itself does not govern registered sale deeds.

Therefore, the proviso dealing with “specific denial” could never arise in such cases.

Interpretation of the Proviso

Referring to Rohitash Kumar v. Om Prakash Sharma (2013), the Supreme Court reiterated that a proviso is intended to carve out an exception to the main provision or qualify its operation. It cannot be construed as an independent rule, nor can it expand, restrict, or override the scope of the principal provision. Accordingly, the proviso to Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act (now Section 67 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam) applies only to documents covered by the main provision and cannot be invoked in respect of registered sale deeds, which are not required by law to be attested.

Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act applies only to documents that are required by law to be attested, such as gift deeds, mortgage deeds, settlement deeds, and wills. While the proviso dispenses with the examination of an attesting witness for registered documents whose execution is not specifically denied, a will must always be proved by examining at least one attesting witness. Since a sale deed is required to be registered but not compulsorily attested, Section 68 has no application to it.

Judicial Precedents Considered

In arriving at its decision, the Supreme Court drew support from earlier rulings on the proof of documents and statutory interpretation. It reaffirmed the principles laid down in Hans Raji v. Yosodanand (1996) and Bayanabai Kaware v. Rajendra Dhote (2018) that Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act (Section 67 of the BSA) is confined to documents that are required by law to be attested and does not extend to registered sale deeds.

The Court also relied on Ram Narain Sons Ltd. v. STO (1955), CIT v. Indo-Mercantile Bank Ltd. (1959), Dwarka Prasad v. Dwarka Das Saraf (1976) to reiterate that a proviso cannot operate independently of the main provision or enlarge its scope

High Court’s Error in Second Appeal

Apart from the interpretation of Section 68 of IEA (Section 67 of BSA), the Supreme Court also found another serious error. The High Court decided the Second Appeal without framing any substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC.

The Supreme Court reiterated that:

• framing substantial questions of law is mandatory;
• failure to do so vitiates the judgment.

Since no such questions had been framed, the High Court’s judgment could not be sustained.

Final Decision

The Supreme Court:

• set aside the High Court’s judgment;
• remitted the Second Appeal for fresh consideration;
• directed the High Court to formulate substantial questions of law before hearing the appeal afresh; and
• clarified the correct legal position regarding Section 68 of the Evidence Act (now Section 67 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam).

Click Here to Read the Official Judgment

Conclusion

In R. Veronica & Anr. v. Rudrayani Devaki (D) Through LRs. S. Satha Kumar & Ors., 2026 INSC 703, the Supreme Court authoritatively held that Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (corresponding to Section 67 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023) has no application to registered sale deeds because the law does not require such deeds to be attested. The Court further emphasised that the proviso regarding “specific denial” cannot be invoked independently of the main provision and applies only to documents that are compulsorily attested by law. By reaffirming the distinction between compulsory registration and compulsory attestation, the judgment provides important guidance for courts, lawyers, and litigants dealing with proof of title documents and ensures that evidentiary rules are applied in accordance with the statutory scheme.

Important Link

Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams