Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Objections to admissibility or mode of proof should be raised at the earliest opportunity; failure to do so may preclude later challenges ["Raghav Das Chela Mahant Mathura Das VS Kali Ram Das Chela Mahant Ganga Ram Das Deceased - Allahabad"].
Analysis and Conclusion:
References:- ["Multiform Chemicals Limited vs Adrian Machado - Supreme Court"]- ["N. Divakaran, Son of Late Narayanan VS David Livingston - Kerala"]- ["Smt. Maddela Kalpana vs Smt. Maddela Janaki - Telangana"]- ["SAMARAKOON V. GUNASEKERA AND ANOTHER"]- ["Narendra Prasad v. Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Limited Express Towers Nariman Point Bombay - Madras"]- ["Basavaramatarakam Memorial Medical Trust, Hyderabad vs Nandamuri Lakshmi Parvathi - Telangana"]- ["Shashank Shekhar v. Jagdish Prasad Saraf and Others - Chhattisgarh"]- ["Raghav Das Chela Mahant Mathura Das VS Kali Ram Das Chela Mahant Ganga Ram Das Deceased - Allahabad"]- ["Shanti Sinha VS Sanjay Kumar Show - Calcutta"]- ["CORNELIS APPUHAMY v. KIRI BANDA et al."]- ["BANDIA v. UNGU et al."]
In legal proceedings, documents often form the backbone of evidence. But what if the original or contemporary document—meaning one created at the time of the event—is unavailable? A common question arises: whether a contemporary document is necessary for proving a document. This issue frequently surfaces in courtrooms, especially under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, where rules on primary, secondary, and oral evidence govern admissibility.
This blog post delves into the nuances of document proof, drawing from judicial precedents and statutory provisions. We'll examine when originals are mandatory, alternatives like oral testimony or secondary evidence, and practical considerations. Note: This is general information, not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
A contemporary document typically refers to an original document produced at or near the time of the transaction it records. Under the Indian Evidence Act, primary evidence is the best proof of a document's contents (Section 64). However, the law doesn't always demand the original. As courts have clarified, proof of a document can be made through oral evidence, secondary evidence, or primary evidence, depending on circumstances NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY VS BIMLA DEVI - 2004 0 Supreme(HP) 238.
The main legal finding is clear: A contemporary document is generally not strictly necessary if other admissible evidence sufficiently establishes authenticity and contents. Admissibility hinges on compliance with procedures, and the weight given depends on the case specifics Shankar Biswas VS State of Tripura - 2012 0 Supreme(Gau) 185R. V. E. Venkatachala Gounder VS Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V. P. Temple - 2003 8 Supreme 193.
Certain documents demand strict proof:
Failure to produce originals in these cases can bar admission, but exceptions exist.
Courts routinely accept alternatives:
In Ramji Dayawala and Sons (P) Ltd. Vs. Invest Import, proof of handwriting alone doesn't validate contents; admissible evidence is key 04600040555. Similarly, mere production of the document would not be proof of document... it is for the plaintiff to establish by proving the said document Cutchi Memon Jamath Rep by its President VS Hajee Sir Ismail Sait Wakf Estate, By its Trustee - 2010 Supreme(Kar) 654.
Tribunals must consider all evidence holistically. While searching for the relevancy the Tribunal is bound to consider the oral evidence also alongwith the documentary one as all facts cannot be proved only by documentary evidence Farida Khatun d/o. Lt. Alal Uddin, W/o. Samsul Hoque VS Union of India - 2020 Supreme(Gau) 308. In citizenship cases under the Foreigners Act, failing to discuss oral evidence alongside documents violates natural justice Farida Khatun d/o. Lt. Alal Uddin, W/o. Samsul Hoque VS Union of India - 2020 Supreme(Gau) 308.
For adoptions, recitals alone aren't enough; evidence of giving/taking the child is needed, and customs must be proved inductively, not theoretically SALEKH CHAND (DEAD) BY L. RS. VS SATYA GUPTA - 2008 Supreme(SC) 402.
Digital proof is stringent. The absence of such a certificate can render the electronic record inadmissible, even if it is contemporaneous Arjun Panditrao Khotkar VS Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal - 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 2202. Bankers' book entries also need certificates OM PRAKASH VS CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (CBI) - 2017 0 Supreme(Del) 3253.
Timely objections are crucial. Objections to mode of proof or admissibility should be raised promptly; failure to do so may amount to waiver R. V. E. Venkatachala Gounder VS Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V. P. Temple - 2003 8 Supreme 193Sebastiao Luis Fernandes VS K. V. P. Shastri - 2013 0 Supreme(SC) 1116. Once waived, courts may accept available evidence.
Here's a summary in bullet points:- Attested/registered docs: Need witnesses or originals Shankar Biswas VS State of Tripura - 2012 0 Supreme(Gau) 185R. V. E. Venkatachala Gounder VS Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V. P. Temple - 2003 8 Supreme 193.- Electronic records: Mandatory certificates Arjun Panditrao Khotkar VS Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal - 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 2202.- 30-year presumption: Only for originals in proper custody Lakhi Baruah VS Padma Kanta Kalita - 1996 2 Supreme 734.- No attestation required: Oral/secondary proof suffices RAMI BAI VS LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA - 1980 0 Supreme(MP) 430.- Public docs: Presumptive value, minimal proof Kishor, S/o Shamrao Dongre VS Rohini, W/o Kishor Dongre - 2017 Supreme(Bom) 997.
To strengthen your case:1. Prioritize originals when authenticity is contested.2. Secure Section 65B certificates for electronics.3. Object early to improper proof.4. Bolster with oral/secondary evidence if originals are unavailable—use experts or witnesses.5. Holistically present evidence, as all facts cannot be proved only by documentary evidence Farida Khatun d/o. Lt. Alal Uddin, W/o. Samsul Hoque VS Union of India - 2020 Supreme(Gau) 308.
In summary, while a contemporary document bolsters proof and is often required (e.g., for attested, registered, or electronic records), it's not universally mandatory. Admissible secondary evidence or oral testimony can suffice if procedures are followed R. V. E. Venkatachala Gounder VS Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V. P. Temple - 2003 8 Supreme 193. Courts emphasize context, compliance, and timely challenges.
Key Takeaways:- Rely on alternatives judiciously.- Understand statutory mandates.- Avoid waivers by prompt objections.
This approach ensures robust evidence presentation. For tailored guidance, seek professional legal counsel.
References (select excerpts):- Arjun Panditrao Khotkar VS Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal - 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 2202: Electronic certificates crucial.- Shankar Biswas VS State of Tripura - 2012 0 Supreme(Gau) 185: Attestation proof.- R. V. E. Venkatachala Gounder VS Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V. P. Temple - 2003 8 Supreme 193: Alternatives to originals.- RAMI BAI VS LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA - 1980 0 Supreme(MP) 430: Non-attested docs.- Sebastiao Luis Fernandes VS K. V. P. Shastri - 2013 0 Supreme(SC) 1116: Waiver of objections.- Lakhi Baruah VS Padma Kanta Kalita - 1996 2 Supreme 734: Section 90 limits.- NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY VS BIMLA DEVI - 2004 0 Supreme(HP) 238: Witness proof.- 04600040555: Contents beyond handwriting.- Farida Khatun d/o. Lt. Alal Uddin, W/o. Samsul Hoque VS Union of India - 2020 Supreme(Gau) 308: Oral + documentary.- Kishor, S/o Shamrao Dongre VS Rohini, W/o Kishor Dongre - 2017 Supreme(Bom) 997Kishor S/o Shamrao Dongre VS Rohini W/o Kishor Dongre - 2017 Supreme(Bom) 990: Public doc presumption.
#DocumentProof, #EvidenceAct, #IndianLaw
There are other ways of proving the authenticity of a document other than by calling the maker of the document. ... Where there has been no admission as to the execution of a document which has been produced, it becomes necessary to prove the handwriting. ... Section 3(b) of Act No. 17 of 2022 further seeks to prevent a party from moving without reasonable cause to get documents marked subject to proof by requiring the Court to decide whether it is necessary to adduc....
Secondary evidence can, obviously, be led only of what the document states, not as to whether what the document states is true. ... Where the party tendering the document finds it necessary to prove the truth of its contents, that is, the truth of what it states, he must do so in the manner he would prove a relevant fact. ... In Appaiya (supra), the Supreme Court recently held that a certified copy of a sale deed, being a public document, would be admissible in evidence for p....
In the circumstances, it is necessary to consider whether the 1st Defendant had admitted the execution of mortgage deed No. 8425. ... provision of law was necessary, before inviting court to treat the contents of such document as evidence. ... party seeking to produce the document become exempted from the requirement of proving the document as stipulated in section 68 of the Evidence Ordinance? ... as evidence without requiring further proof (b) if the opposing party ....
When a document is admitted subject to proof, the party tendering it in evidence is obliged to formally prove it by calling the evidence necessary to prove the document according to law. ... (3) "When a document is admitted subject to proof, the party tendering it in evidence is obliged to formally prove it by calling the evidence necessary to prove the document according to law. ... (c) Whether the plaintiff respondent has proved his claim on a balance of ....
for the purpose of proving the contents of its original document. ... When that be the position under the aforesaid provisions, taking note of the fact that the document in question is a registered sale deed, falling within the definition of a public document, the question is whether there exists any law declaring such certified copy of a document as admissible in evidence ... in evidence for proving the contents of its original. ... Thus, it is clear that certified c....
Evidence is admissible to show whether the witness had the intention to attest. ... Considering the principle stated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above cases, though PW.3 was cross-examined, it is considered necessary to decide the merit of the order passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court in I.A.No.3395 of 2018 dated 28.11.2018, as to whether the same was in accordance ... Proof of execution of document required by law to be attested - If a document is required by law to be attested, it....
Citing Pyare Lal Versus Mehar Singh and others (2011-2) PLR 82 (P&H), it is claimed that certified copy of plaint is a public document and no further proof is necessary for proving the said document. ... So far as the cases on hand are concerned, documents are not subjected to tests and therefore, once the document is admitted it will not amount to proving of contents of the documents. ... The copy of the plaint and statement, which were exhibited in Court could, therefore, be relied o....
in evidence for proving the contents of its original.” ... The finding of the court below that the “mere fact that the document is forthcoming from a government department and bear its seal will not dispense with the necessity of formalities proving those documents” is perverse and not justified. ... In fact the certified copy obtained from the registrar’s office can be admitted in evidence under section 57 (5) of the REGISTRATION ACT , 1908 and shall be admissible for the purpose for proving the contents of the origin....
At such trial the document referred to should be admitted in evidence (subject to the payment of any necessary penalty) on the plaintiff proving its execution. The plaintiff is entitled to the costs of this appeal. ... The point that arises for consideration is whether this document is a document stampable under Schedule B, Part 1, item 1 of the Stamp Ordinance which refers to an- "Acknowledgment of a debt amounting to Rs. 20 or upwards is amount or value written or signed by o....
- In this case the only issue is whether deed No. 41,375 was executed by one Dingiria. ... If a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the Court and capable of giving evidence ... That section is in the following terms:-" If a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one att....
So the said exercise requires discussions and reasoning and if there is no such discussion, then it would amount to non consideration of a particular fact pleaded resulting violation of principle of natural justice affecting the proceedee. Once a document is held to be relevant then comes the issue of proving the document and the contents thereof. While searching for the relevancy the Tribunal is bound to consider the oral evidence also alongwith the documentary one as all facts cannot be proved only by documentary evidence.
The only option left for the husband is to rebut the said document. A perusal of the same reveals that the date of birth of Mayank is shown as 17.06.2010 and the name of the father is shown as Kishor Shamrao Dongre and the name of mother is shown as Chhaya. The said document being the public document is having presumptive value and no formal proof is required for proving the same.
The only option left for the husband is to rebut the said document. A perusal of the same reveals that the date of birth of Mayank is shown as 17.06.2010 and the name of the father is shown as Kishor Shamrao Dongre and the name of mother is shown as Chhaya. The said document being the public document is having presumptive value and no formal proof is required for proving the same.
9. It would be necessary to observe that mere production of the document would not be proof of document would not be proof of document and for what purpose it has been produced by the plaintiff, it is for the plaintiff to establish by proving the said document. In so far as two decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are being discussed herein below: Clarence Pais and others versus Union of India reported in 2001(4) SCC 325: In the said judgment section 213 of the Indian Succession Act and its scope was the subject matter for consideration, wherein i....
4. Whether recital in a document regarding alleged adoption is sufficient for proving of the factum of adoption? 3. Whether for proving the factum of adoption it was necessary to lead evidence of giving and taking of an adopted child at the time of ceremony of adoption? ( 4 ) IN support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the custom was established. ( 3 ) THE High Court found that question No. 3 as formulated above was not a substantial question of law but held that there was no prevalent custom permitting adoption of the sister's son and, theref....
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
