Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
AJAY MOHAN GOEL
Mansha Ram – Appellant
Versus
Amar Nath (since deceased) through Lrs. Sh. Ashok Kumar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Ajay Mohan Goel, J.
By way of this petition, the petitioner has assailed order dated 04.10.2017, passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.1, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P., in CMA No. 781-6 of 2016, in Civil Suit No. CS 102-1 of 2011, in terms whereof, an application filed by the predecessor respondents No.1(a) to 1(c), namely Amar Nath, under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Evidence Act’) to lead secondary evidence, was allowed.
2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that deceased-respondent No.1 Amar Nath, who was the plaintiff before the learned Trial Court, filed a suit praying for a decree of declaration to the effect that plaintiff and defendant No.1 are joint owners in possession in equal share over the share of late Smt. Har Dei, as per her last Will executed on 12.12.2009 and revenue entries showing Har Dei as the owner in possession in revenue record are illegal, null and void.
3. In terms of the averments made in the plaint, copy whereof is on record as Annexure P-1, the contention of the plaintiff was that the plaintiff, defendant No.1 and Smt. Har Dei are jointly recorded as
Validation of secondary evidence requires strict adherence to stipulations under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, failing which the application may be quashed.
Secondary evidence requires cogent evidence of document loss; mere assertions do not suffice under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Civil Law – Secondary Evidence – Reliability of - A party to lis may choose to file an application which is required to be considered by trial court but if any party to suit has laid foundation of le....
The trial court erred by allowing secondary evidence regarding the Will without sufficient pleadings and at a late stage of litigation.
The best evidence available should be produced before resorting to secondary evidence.
Court upheld the use of secondary evidence to prove a will's contents, despite procedural deficiencies, affirming the trial court's discretion.
Order VII Rule 14 CPC and Evidence Act Sections 65(a), 45 cannot be used belatedly to fill evidentiary lacunae; requires due diligence, notice, authentication; no supervisory interference absent perv....
A party seeking to introduce secondary evidence must establish a proper foundation regarding the original document's possession and the reasons for its non-production, as mandated by Section 65 of th....
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
