JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was made by MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ,J.)

The question that arises for consideration in this appeal revolves around the scope and ambit of Section 65 B of the Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as “Act”).

For the sake of convenience, we shall refer to the parties in terms of their ranking in the suit in CS.No.375 of 2005.

2. Brief Facts:

a) The respondents 1 to 6 herein are the plaintiffs in the suit and they laid the same for specific performance based on an oral agreement for sale of schedule mentioned property owned by the defendants 1 to 5. The appellants herein are the 1st and 3rd defendants in the suit. The Chartered Accountant and the daughter of the 4th defendant were arrayed as the 6th and 7th defendants in the suit and are the 10th and 11th respondents herein.

b) The claim to the schedule mentioned property was made on the basis of an oral agreement. To prove/establish the said oral agreement, the plaintiffs / respondents herein relied on copies of e-mails stated to be exchanged between th th the 6 and 7 defendants which were produced as Plaint documents.

c) During trial, the plaintiffs / respondents had taken out two applications in A.Nos.4184 a