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…!
Documents cannot be marked through the husband of the plaintiff solely based on his examination as PW2. In multiple cases, PW2 is identified as a relative, such as uncle or father of the plaintiff, and his role varies from witness supporting the case to a family member providing background information. For example, in ["A.PRIYADARSINI vs M.KUMARESH - Madras"], PW2 is the husband's uncle who filed a proof affidavit, but his personal documents (Ex.P10) are considered family documents, and no indication suggests he has authority to mark or authenticate documents on behalf of the plaintiff.
The status of PW2 as a family member or witness does not inherently grant him authority to mark or authenticate documents on behalf of the plaintiff. In ["2018 and CMP.No.4232 - Madras"], PW2 is examined as a doctor, and the court notes that no objection was raised when documents were marked, but this does not imply he has marking authority for the plaintiff’s documents. Similarly, in ["P.K.KOTHAI vs T.RAVICHANDRAN - Madras"], PW2, a family member, merely supports the case without any indication of being authorized to mark documents.
In general, document marking is a judicial act that requires proper foundation and is typically done by the court or with court approval. Merely examining as PW2 or being a family member does not confer the authority to mark documents unless explicitly authorized or recognized by the court. For instance, in ["K. Bhaskaran Nair VS Habeeb Mohammed - Kerala"], the marking of Exts. Al to A7 and B1 to B12 was done through the court process, not by PW2.
Main insight: The examination of PW2 as a witness (whether family member, doctor, or otherwise) does not automatically allow him to mark documents on behalf of the plaintiff. Marking documents requires court permission or proper procedural foundation, not merely the witness’s status as examined.
Analysis and Conclusion:Based on the provided sources, documents can only be marked through court procedures and not solely by the husband of the plaintiff or by PW2 unless explicitly authorized. The role of PW2 as a witness does not inherently include authority to mark documents. Therefore, the husband or PW2 cannot independently mark documents on behalf of the plaintiff; such actions must follow proper court procedures.
In Indian court proceedings, marking documents as exhibits is a critical step for their admissibility as evidence. A common query arises: whether documents can be marked through the husband of the plaintiff who is examined as PW2? This question often surfaces in civil suits, matrimonial disputes, and other cases where family members serve as witnesses.
The short answer is yes, generally, documents can be marked through the husband of the plaintiff examined as PW2, but only if the document is properly proved according to law, including compliance with attestation and execution proof requirements. This blog delves into the legal principles, conditions, limitations, and practical insights drawn from judicial precedents.
Under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, specific provisions regulate how documents, especially those required to be attested (like wills or certain agreements), must be proved. Section 68 mandates that for attested documents, at least one attesting witness must be examined if alive and capable of giving evidence. This ensures the document's authenticity is verified through direct testimony. Myladimmal Surendran VS State of Kerala - 2010 0 Supreme(SC) 812
Section 71 offers flexibility: if the attesting witness denies execution or does not recollect it, the document can be proved by other evidence. However, mere marking as an exhibit or admission of signatures does not amount to proof of execution or contents. Myladimmal Surendran VS State of Kerala - 2010 0 Supreme(SC) 812Raj Kumari VS Surinder Pal Sharma - 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 2291
The law emphasizes strict compliance, particularly for wills under Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, where attestation is paramount. Without proper proof, documents risk rejection, regardless of who tenders them. Raj Kumari VS Surinder Pal Sharma - 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 2291
The husband of the plaintiff can be examined as PW2 (Plaintiff's Witness 2) and used to mark documents if he qualifies as an attesting witness or has knowledge of the execution. Courts have permitted this in various cases, provided procedural safeguards are met.
For instance, in matrimonial proceedings, husbands or relatives are frequently examined as PW2 to tender documents. In one case, The husband was examined as PW1 and his sister was examined as PW2... Exts. A1 and A2 were marked on the side of the petitioner. DINESAN C V vs PREETHA PAVITHRAN - 2019 Supreme(Online)(KER) 30978 Similar patterns appear in multiple rulings, showing family members routinely marking exhibits without issue when properly examined. DINESAN.C.V vs PREETHA PAVITHRAN AND ANOTHER - 2019 Supreme(Online)(KER) 54117DINESAN C V vs PREETHA PAVITHRAN - 2019 Supreme(Online)(KER) 1520
In a medical report context, the two reports were marked as Exs.P6 and P7 and the Doctor from the Coimbatore Medical College had been examined as PW2... there was no objection on the side of the revision petitioner, when the documents were marked. 2018 and CMP.No.4232 This illustrates that lack of objection during examination strengthens admissibility.
To mark documents through PW2:- He must be competent: Available, capable, and ideally an attesting witness present at execution.- Proper testimony: PW2 must depose on execution, signatures, and attestation. Cross-examination opportunities must be allowed.- Compliance with Sections 68/71: If PW2 is the attesting witness and affirms execution, the document is proved. If he denies or forgets, supplement with handwriting experts, other witnesses, or circumstantial evidence. Myladimmal Surendran VS State of Kerala - 2010 0 Supreme(SC) 812
In criminal and civil trials, plaintiffs examine multiple PW including relatives: the complainant examined herself as PW1 and examined her husband Mr.Raju as PW2 and marked documents as Exs. Rathnamal Antony VS Malar - 2015 Supreme(Mad) 2117 No bar exists solely because PW2 is the husband.
Judgments reinforce this practice:- In a POCSO case, prosecution examined 18 witnesses and marked 10 documents, with doctors as PW10/PW11 marking medical reports. JEYABALAN S/O. MARUTHAMUTHU vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE - 2020 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 6390Jeyabalan VS State the Inspector of Police - 2020 Supreme(Mad) 2413- Motor accident claims saw doctors examined as PW2 to mark reports: He also examined the Doctor as PW.2 and through him got marked documents as per Exs.P13 to P15. Narayanaswamy @ Narayanappa VS N. Manjunath - 2019 Supreme(Kar) 766- Matrimonial suits frequently involve husbands as PW1/PW2 marking family documents: The petitioner-husband got himself examined as PW1 and got marked documents from Exs. P1 to P14. Amit S/o Vinay Welangi VS Nupur W/o Amit Welangi - 2018 Supreme(Kar) 1104Amit VS Nupur
These examples show courts accept marking through PW2, including relatives, absent objections or proof lapses.
Despite permissibility, pitfalls exist:- Strict for attested documents: Failure to examine an attesting witness leads to inadmissibility. Mere exhibit marking proves nothing. Myladimmal Surendran VS State of Kerala - 2010 0 Supreme(SC) 812- Witness unavailability: If PW2 (husband) is dead or incapable, prove via other evidence, but credibility is key. Raj Kumari VS Surinder Pal Sharma - 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 2291- Wills and stringent rules: For wills, the law is more stringent, requiring at least one attesting witness to testify. Raj Kumari VS Surinder Pal Sharma - 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 2291- Objections and cross-examination: As in 2018 and CMP.No.4232, unchallenged marking stands, but post-trial challenges may fail if not raised timely.
In divorce cases, unsubstantiated allegations by one spouse can constitute cruelty, but document proof remains independent. Amit S/o Vinay Welangi VS Nupur W/o Amit Welangi - 2018 Supreme(Kar) 1104
When relying on PW2 (plaintiff's husband):- Summon him properly and prepare for cross-examination.- Ensure testimony covers execution details.- Backup with secondary evidence if needed (e.g., handwriting reports).- Avoid over-reliance on marking; focus on probative value.
Recommendations:- Strictly follow Sections 68 and 71. Myladimmal Surendran VS State of Kerala - 2010 0 Supreme(SC) 812- If PW2 falters, pivot to other proof. Raj Kumari VS Surinder Pal Sharma - 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 2291- In family cases, leverage precedents like those in Kerala High Court rulings. DINESAN C V vs PREETHA PAVITHRAN - 2019 Supreme(Online)(KER) 30978
Documents can typically be marked through the husband of the plaintiff as PW2 if he is an attesting witness and procedures under the Indian Evidence Act are followed. Courts prioritize proper proof over the witness's relation to parties.
Key Takeaways:- Proof of execution trumps mere marking.- Sections 68/71 provide the framework.- Family members as PW2 are common and acceptable with compliance.- Always supplement weak testimony.
This post provides general information based on legal principles and is not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
References:1. Myladimmal Surendran VS State of Kerala - 2010 0 Supreme(SC) 812 – Proof under Sections 68/71.2. Raj Kumari VS Surinder Pal Sharma - 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 2291 – Wills and attestation.3. Various cases like 2018 and CMP.No.4232, JEYABALAN S/O. MARUTHAMUTHU vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE - 2020 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 6390, etc., for procedural examples.
#IndianEvidenceAct, #DocumentProof, #LegalWitness
On behalf of the plaitiff, Exts. Al to A7 were marked and on behalf of the defendants, Exts. Bl to B12 were marked. The plaintiff was examined as PW1 and two other witnesses were examined as PWs 2 and 3. The first defendant was examined as DW1. ... Acording to the defendants ,they were in dire need of money .Hence , they approached the plaintiff to give them a loan of Rs 1 lakh .The plaintiff agreed to give them a loan , if certain documents were executed .The defenda....
Thereafter, the two reports were marked as Exs.P6 and P7 and the Doctor from the Coimbatore Medical College had been examined as PW2. ... That apart, there was no objection on the side of the revision petitioner, when the documents were marked and there has also not been any cross examination of PW2 on the lines as argued now. ... A detailed counter has been filed by the respondent husband, who would contend that PW2 had been examined#HL_EN....
During the course of trial, on the side of the plaintiff, two witnesses were examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and three documents were marked as Ex.A1 to EX.A3. On the side of the defendant, three witnesses were examined as D.W.1 to D.W.3 and no document is produced. ... If the said Anbarasu had any tax problem in getting security documents in his favour nothing would have prevented him to get such documents in the name of his Finance Company; since D.W.3 and the appellants husba....
The petitioner/husband had examined himself as PW1 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 were marked on the side of the husband. ... Thereafter, one Mr.Sridhar, uncle of the husband, examined as PW2, filed one CD along with proof affidavit and also served a copy of the same to the respondent/wife therein and the CD was also marked as Ex.P9 and Ex.P10 ... Admittedly, Mr.Sridhar (PW2), uncle of the husband, filed a proof ....
In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 18 witnesses were examined, 10 documents were marked. On the side of the accused, no witnesses were examined, however, Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-7 were marked. ... P.W.-10 is the Doctor, who had examined the accused and the report given by him is marked as Ex.P-6. P.W.-11 is the Doctor, who examined the victim girl. ... Finally, it was argued that oral evidence given by PW-11 (Dr.Sujatha), w....
In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 18 witnesses were examined, 10 documents were marked. On the side of the accused, no witnesses were examined, however, Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-7 were marked. 2.7. ... P.W.-10 is the Doctor, who had examined the accused and the report given by him is marked as Ex.P-6. P.W.-11 is the Doctor, who examined the victim girl. ... Finally, it was argued that oral evidence given by PW-11 (Dr.Sujath....
The petitioner has examined PW1 and PW2 and marked 7 documents. ... PW2 examined in support of the case of the petitioner would only state that PW2 is representative of Mahila Samukhya Kendra and states that counseling was carried on to the petitioner and respondent in their office. In support of the said statement, Exs.P3 to P5 have been marked as documents. ... The husband filed petition seeking dissolution of ma....
The husband was examined as PW1 and his sister was examined as PW2. The wife was 5 examined as RW1 and her father was examined as RW2. Exts. ... A1 and A2 were marked on the side of the petitioner and Exts.B1 to B5 were marked on the side of the respondent. Exts.X1 and X2 were the documents summoned and marked before court. ... Apparently, the question to be considered was whether the wife was....
The husband was examined as PW1 and his sister was examined as PW2. The wife was 5 examined as RW1 and her father was examined as RW2. Exts. ... A1 and A2 were marked on the side of the petitioner and Exts.B1 to B5 were marked on the side of the respondent. Exts.X1 and X2 were the documents summoned and marked before court. ... Apparently, the question to be considered was whether the wife was....
The husband was examined as PW1 and his sister was examined as PW2. The wife was 5 examined as RW1 and her father was examined as RW2. Exts. ... A1 and A2 were marked on the side of the petitioner and Exts.B1 to B5 were marked on the side of the respondent. Exts.X1 and X2 were the documents summoned and marked before court. ... Apparently, the question to be considered was whether the wife was....
He also examined the Doctor as PW.2 and through him got marked documents as per Exs.P13 to P15. On behalf of the respondents, RW.1 was examined and Exs.R1 to R8 were got marked. After hearing arguments of learned counsel for the parties and on evaluation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal passed the impugned judgment, awarding compensation of Rs.3,52,749/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation.
The petitioner-husband got himself examined as PW1 and got marked documents from Exs. P1 to P14. She stated that, in order to overcome all his normal activities, the petitioner has got filed a frivolous petition against her. The respondent– wife got herself examined as RW1 and got marked documents from Exs. R1 to R4. After hearing both sides, the Family Court by its judgment dated 01.12.2014 holding that the petitioner could not prove that he was deserted by his respondent-wife and that she also subjected him to cruelty, dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner-husban....
The respondent–wife got herself examined as RW1 and got marked documents from Exs. R1 to R4. After hearing both sides, the Family Court by its judgment dated 01.12.2014 holding that the petitioner could not prove that he was deserted by his respondent-wife and that she also subjected him to cruelty, dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner-husband. The petitioner-husband got himself examined as PW1 and got marked documents from Exs. P1 to P14. She stated that, in order to overcome all his normal activities, the petitioner has got filed a frivolous petition against her....
She stated that, in order to overcome all his normal activities, the petitioner has got filed a frivolous petition against her. After hearing both sides, the Family Court by its judgment dated 01.12.2014 holding that the petitioner could not prove that he was deserted by his respondent-wife and that she also subjected him to cruelty, dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner-husband. The petitioner-husband got himself examined as PW1 and got marked documents from Exs. P1 to P14. The respondent– wife got herself examined as RW1 and got marked documents from Exs. R1 to R....
3. During the course of trial, the complainant examined herself as PW1 and examined her husband Mr.Raju as PW2 and marked documents as Exs. The accused was questioned under Section 313(1)(b) of Cr. P.C. with regard to the incriminating circumstances made out against her in the evidences tendered by the complainant and she denied it as false.
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
