IMPORTANT POINT
Objection as to the mode of proof falls within procedural law, therefore, such objections could be waived. They have to be taken before the document is marked as an exhibit and admitted to the record.

Headnote:(i) Evidence Act, 1872-Sections 65 and 90-Civil Procedure Code, 1908-Order XIII Rule 3-Certified copy of a document-Objection was not that certified copy was in itself inadmissible but that mode of proof was irregular and insufficient-Such objections have to be taken before the document is marked as an exhibit and admitted to the record-Such objections could be waived.
       Held : That when the objection to be taken is not that the document is in itself inadmissible but that the mode of proof was irregular, it is essential that the objection should be taken at the trial before the document is marked as an exhibit and admitted to the record. Similarly, in Sarkar on Evidence, 15th Edition, page 1084, it has been stated that where copies of the documents are admitted without objection in the trial Court, no objection to their admissibility can be taken afterwards in the court of appeal. When a party gives in evidence a certified copy, without proving the circumstances entitling him to give secondary evidence, objection must be taken at the time of admission and such objection will not be allowed at a later stage. In the present case, when the plaintiff submitted a certified copy of the sale deed (Ex. P1) in evidence and when the sale deed was taken on record and marked as an exhibit, the appellant did not raise any objection. Even execution of Ex. P2 was not challenged. In the circumstances, it was not open to the appellant to object to the mode of proof before the lower appellate Court. If the objection had been taken at the trial stage, the plaintiff could have met it by calling for the original sale deed which was on record in collateral proceedings. But as there was no objection from the appellant, the sale deed dated 14.11.1944 was marked as Ex.P1 and it was admitted to the record without objection. (Paras 14 and 15)
       (ii) Civil Procedure Code, 1908-Order XIII Rule 3-Evidence Act, 1872-Sections 65 and 90-Suit for declaration-Sale deed produced was more than 30 years old document-Appellant did not object to registered sale deed being marked and admitted in evidence-Appellant also did not challenge execution of gift deed-Trial Court decreed the suit-Appeal-Lower Appellate Court held that plaintiff had failed to prove sale deed and gift deed as neither executant nor donor had been examined and that these documents could not be acted upon as original deed had not been produced-Suit dismissed-Second appeal-Whether High Court erred in holding that registered certified copy of sale deed was admissible in evidence-(No)-Sale deed was marked and admitted to record without objection. (Para 15)

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Here are the key points derived from the provided legal document:

Objections related to the mode of proof of a document are procedural in nature and can be waived if not raised at the appropriate time, specifically before the document is marked as an exhibit and admitted into evidence (!) (!) .
When a party admits a certified copy of a document without raising an objection to its mode of proof at the time of admission, they cannot later challenge its admissibility on procedural grounds (!) (!) .
If the objection is that the mode of proof was irregular or insufficient, it must be raised at the trial stage before the document is marked and admitted. Failure to do so results in waiver of that objection (!) (!) .
The admissibility of secondary evidence, such as a certified copy, depends on whether the foundation for its admissibility was properly laid. If the original document is not produced, the party must establish that the original is lost or unavailable, and this must be done before the document is admitted (!) (!) .
In the case discussed, the party did not challenge the execution of the original documents or object to their admission at the appropriate time, leading to the conclusion that the documents were properly admitted and their contents accepted (!) (!) .
The failure to object at the time of admission of the document led to the waiver of procedural objections, and the appellate court was correct in relying on the certified copies for its decision (!) (!) .
The procedural rules emphasize that objections to the mode of proof should be made immediately and prior to the document being marked as an exhibit. Objections made after the fact are generally considered waived, especially if the document has been admitted without challenge (!) (!) .
The appellate court's decision to uphold the admissibility of the documents was consistent with procedural law principles, given the absence of timely objections (!) (!) .

These points highlight the importance of raising procedural objections promptly during trial to preserve the right to challenge evidence's admissibility.

JUDGMENT

Kapadia, J.-This appeal by special leave is filed by the original defendant against the judgment and order dated 18th December, 1998 passed by the High Court of Karnataka in R.S.A. No. 802 of 1995.

Briefly, the facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows:-

2. K.M. Shaffi, respondent herein instituted a suit bearing O.S.No. 451/84 in the Court of Principal Munsiff, Bellary (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as "the trial Court") for a declaration that a portion of T.S.No. 272-A and T.S. No. 273-B admeasuring 80 x 120 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as "the suit plot") was his and his brother s absolute property. In the said suit, the plaintiff also sought an injunction restraining the appellant herein (defendant) from entering the suit plot.

3. T.G. Sreenivasa Pillai, T.G. Vivekananda Pillai and T.G. Sathyanarayana Pillai sons of Gurunatham Pillai were the owners of suit land bearing S. No. 635R (which was revised to T.S. 272) admeasuring 90 cents and S. No. 635T (revised to T.S. 273) admeasuring 5 acres 38 cents. The sons of Gurunatham Pillai sold the above lands to Khan Saheb Abdul Hye vide sale deed dated 14.11.1944 (Ex.P.1) for Rs. 300/-. Khan Saheb Abdul died in 1947 leaving behind him his two sons, Basheer and Muneer who in turn gifted the said lands to one Sattar (father of the plaintiff) and Rahiman (plaintiff s uncle) under gift deed dated 20.6.1966 (Ex.P2). Sattar and Rahiman got the above lands sub-divided. In the partition suit No. 381/72 on the file of Principal Munsiff, Bellary the plaintiff herein and his brother got the sub-divided plot Nos. T.S. 272A and T.S. 273B which included the suit plot admeasuring 80 x120 . The present title suit was filed when the appellant herein tried to enter upon the suit plot.

4. In the written statement, the appellant herein pleaded that the suit plot admeasuring 80 x 120 was a separate plot and that it was not a part of T.S. 272A and T.S. 273B as alleged. It was pleaded that the suit plot was separately assessed by the municipality. It was pleaded that on 19.7.1967, the husband of the appellant had bought the suit plot from one Rajarathnam. That the husband of the appellant had later on executed a deed of settlement in favour of the appellant on 12.1.1973 and that the appellant had been in possession and in enjoyment of the suit plot. That Rajarathnam had purchased the suit plot in 1965 from the wife of Gurunatham Pillai. In the written statement, the appellant herein denied that the sons of Gurunatham had sold the lands to Khan Saheb Abdul as alleged. It was contended that sons had no right to sell the said lands. That the wife of Gurunatham was the owner. That she had not executed any conveyance in favour of Khan Saheb. In the written statement, appellant denied the gift by sons of Khan Saheb to Sattar and Rahiman.

5. Two main points arose for determination before the trial Court. Firstly, whether the plaintiff is the owner of the suit plot. Secondly, whether the suit plot formed part of T.S. 272A and T.S. 273B. According to PW1 the title came to him through the sons of Gurunatham vide Ex.P1 which was a registered sale deed dated 14.11.1944 and later on under Ex.P2 which is gift deed executed by sons of Khan Saheb in favour of Sattar and Rahiman.

6. On the other hand, the appellant (defendant) claimed title only to the suit plot admeasuring 80 x 120 . She claimed it to be a separate property. She traced her title to the wife of Gurunatham. She contended that the sons of Gurunatham had no right to sell.

7. The trial Court found that when on 14.11.1944 the sons of Gurunatham Pillai had sold the above lands vide sale deed Ex.P1 to Khan Saheb Abdul for Rs. 300/-, the wife of Gurunatham had no right to sell the suit plot in 1965 through her constituted attorney to Rajarathnam from whom the husband of the appellant claims to have purchased the suit plot. The trial Court further observed that before it there was no plea that the wife of Gurunath

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2004 Supreme(SC) 798

IMPORTANT POINTObjection as to the mode of proof falls within procedural law, therefore, such objections could be waived. They have to be taken before the document is marked as an exhibit and admitted to the record.

Cases Referred (2)

IMPORTANT POINT
Objection as to the mode of proof falls within procedural law, therefore, such objections could be waived. They have to be taken before the document is marked as an exhibit and admitted to the record.