SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2000 Supreme(SC) 1307

A.R.MISRA, Y.K.SABHARWAL
Rosammal Issetheenammal Fernandez – Appellant
Versus
Joosa Mariyan Fernandez – Respondent


Judgement Key Points
  • Application of the proviso to Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act depends on whether there is a specific denial of the execution of a document required by law to be attested. [judgement_act_referred] (!) (!) [1000047590007]
  • The proviso exempts the need to call an attesting witness for a registered document (not a will) only if its execution is not specifically denied. (!) (!) [1000047590007]
  • A finding on the existence of specific denial must be clearly specific, not vaguely or negatively drawn, as it directly impacts the admissibility of the document and parties' rights. [IMPORTANT POINT][1000047590004]
  • Courts must examine the pleadings to determine if there is specific denial, as pleadings form the basis where parties state their factual positions. [1000047590004][1000047590005]
  • Allegations in pleadings that a document was created fraudulently, without consent, with the executant incapacitated, and signatures forged, constitute a specific denial of execution. [1000047590005] (!) [1000047590006]
  • Witness testimony admitting presence or signing does not negate a specific denial clearly stated in pleadings. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
  • Where there is specific denial, the main provision of Section 68 requires at least one attesting witness to prove execution; failure to produce any renders the document inadmissible. [1000047590006][1000047590008]
  • Vague judicial observations like "it is difficult to infer a specific denial" indicate error if pleadings show clear denial, leading to incorrect application of the proviso. (!) [1000047590003][1000047590004]
  • Non-compliance with Section 68 due to specific denial and no attesting witness means the document's execution fails proof, depriving parties of rights claimed under it. [1000047590008][1000047590009]

ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The short question raised is, whether the High Court was right to entertain Exhibit B-1 in evidence, in view of proviso to Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act.

3. The short facts are, the appellants filed the suit for partition of the plaint Schedule property claiming 2/5th share as parties are Roman Catholic Christians of Latin rite and as per custom in the community, both daughters and sons get equal share. The appellant also challenged the execution of the gift deed Exhibit B-1 and the Settlement Deed Exhibit B-2. The trial Court dismissed the suit with the finding that the plaintiffs have not proved the existence of any custom, by which the male and female heirs share equally to the property of a deceased dying intestate. The claim of the property is from Jossa Mariyan Fernandez (deceased). The court held that Jaius Fernandez was not in a position to execute the documents on the alleged date i.e. the 12th of November, 1973. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants filed an appeal. The appellate court, after permitting to bring on record, two additional documents, remanded the case back for fresh determination. After remand the trial C


















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top