Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
N. Divakaran, Son of Late Narayanan and Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
David Livingston and Ors. – Respondents
OP(C) NO. 75 of 2018
Decided On : 01-07-2024
EVIDENCE - ADMISSIBILITY OF DOCUMENTS - Sections 61, 62, 63, 65, 74, 76, 77, 79 of the Evidence Act - The court discussed the admissibility of documents under the Evidence Act, emphasizing that while certified copies of public documents are admissible, they do not prove the truth of the contents. The court highlighted the necessity of proving the facts stated in documents through oral evidence, especially when the truth of those facts is disputed. The trial court's premature acceptance of a document's contents without proper proof was deemed incorrect, leading to the decision to set aside that finding.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of property, claiming it belonged to them. The defendant contended he had acquired the property through a final decree in a partition suit. The trial court had to decide on the admissibility of certain documents presented by the defendant, which the plaintiffs objected to on grounds of proof and admissibility.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court prematurely accepted the admissibility of Ext.B2 without requiring the author of the document to be examined. It ruled that while certified copies of public documents are admissible, they do not establish the truth of the facts stated within them without further evidence.
Issues: Whether the trial court correctly admitted Ext.B2 as evidence without requiring the author to be examined, and whether the truth of the contents of the document could be established by its mere production.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that the mere production of a document does not prove the truth of its contents, especially when those contents are disputed. It reiterated that the facts stated in a document must be proven through oral evidence, and the admissibility of certified copies does not relieve a party from this obligation.
Final Decision: The court set aside the trial court's finding regarding the admissibility of Ext.B2 and directed that its proof be considered independently along with other evidence after the completion of the evidence.
JUDGMENT :
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
Ext.P4 order passed by the Additional Munsiff Court-II, Thiruvananthapuram (for short, 'the trial court') is under challenge in this original petition.
2. The petitioners herein are the plaintiffs, and the 1st respondent herein is the defendant in O.S.No.545/1998 on the file of the trial court. The suit was one for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The plaintiffs claim that the plaint schedule property belongs to them and is in their possession. In the written statement and the additional written statement, the defendants raised rival title and possession over the plaint schedule property. It was contended that, he purchased a larger extent of property from persons who had been allotted plots as per the final decree in a suit for partition; that he obtained possession over the property in execution of that final decree by delivery through court and that the plaint schedule property was a part of the property delivered over to him in execution of the decree.
3. The parties went on trial. After the oral evidence on the side of the plaintiffs was over, the defendant was examined on commission as DW1. He filed proof-affidavit in lieu of chief-examination before the commissioner and marked Exts.B1 to B14. The counsel for the plaintiffs objected to the marking of the documents tendered as Exts.B2, B8, B9 and B10. The objections were recorded by the commissioner, and they were reserved to be decided by the court at the stage of hearing as contemplated under the proviso to Rule 4 of Order XVIII of CPC. It is evident from Ext.P3 testimony of DW1.
4. Ext.B2 is a delivery kychit given by Amin in the execution of the final decree mentioned above. Exts.B8 to B10 are the photostat copies of the land revenue receipts in respect of the plaint schedule property. The plaintiffs objected to the marking of Ext.B2 on the ground that it is a report submitted by an Amin to the court in another suit in which they were not parties, and it cannot be proved without examining the author of that document. To be precise, the objection was to the mode of proof of Ext.B2. The objection to the marking of Exts.B8, B9 and B10 was that the documents are photocopies and cannot be admitted in evidence at all. The objection was to the admissibility of the documents. The trial court heard both sides as to the objections raised by the plaintiffs over Exts.B2, B8, B9 and B10. Thereafter, it passed Ext.P4 order accepting the objection made by the plaintiffs against Exts. B8 to B10 and over-ruling the objection against Ext.B2. It is challenging the said order; this original petition has been preferred.
5. The 1st respondent died during the pendency of this Original Petition. The additional respondents 2 to 6 were impleaded as his legal heirs.
6. I have heard Sri.V.Suresh, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.M.Gopikrishnan Nambiar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial court passed Ext.P4 order as if deciding the entire suit and failed to comprehend the scope of the question that arose before it at that stage. The learned counsel further submitted that the facts stated in Ext.B2 document or the truth of contents therein cannot be proved by mere production of certified copy of the said document without the author being examined. The objection under the proviso to Rule 4 of Order XVIII of CPC regarding the proof and admissibility of the objected document can be taken up for consideration by the court only after the evidence is completed, submitted the counsel. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents supported the findings in the impugned order. It was urged that Ext. B2 being the certified copy of a public document, the Court was obliged to consider the truth of the contents thereof as being prima facie established. Reliance was placed on Appaiya v. Andimuthu alias Thangapandi and others (AIR 2023 S
The admissibility of certified copies of public documents does not equate to proof of the truth of their contents; such truth must be established through oral evidence.
The court ruled that while a certified copy of a sale deed is admissible as secondary evidence, it does not suffice to prove the execution of the deed, which must demonstrate intention and legal vali....
A certified copy of a registered sale deed is classified as a public document and admissible as secondary evidence without formal proof under relevant provisions of the Evidence Act.
Certified copies of registered deeds are admissible in evidence under the Indian Evidence Act and should be tentatively marked as exhibits without requiring the registering authority's presence for p....
Judgments not inter partes can be admissible to show rights in property disputes under the Indian Evidence Act, aiding in establishing asserted ownership despite objections based on inadmissibility.
The court established that secondary evidence is inadmissible without a foundational explanation for the absence of primary evidence, emphasizing strict adherence to evidentiary rules.
Photocopies of public documents are admissible as evidence if authenticated by testimony, mitigating previous rejections based on technical evidence rules.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
