1. Murthy VS C. Saradambal - 10 Dec 21

(1) When a Will is allegedly shrouded in suspicion, its proof ceases to be a simple lis between plaintiff and defendant.(2) Genuineness of Will must be proved by proving intention of testator to make testament and for that, all steps which are required to be taken for making a valid testament must be proved by placing concrete evidence before Court.(3) While reversing or modifying judgment of a Trial Court, it is duty of Appellate Court to reflect in its judgment, conscious application of mind on findings recorded supported by reasons, on all issues dealt with, as well as contentions put forth, and pressed by parties for decision of Appellate Court.(4) Right to appeal is a creature of statute – Right to file appeal by an unsuccessful party assailing judgment of Original Court is a valuable right.

Section 276 – Suit for grant of Letters of Administration – No evidence of doctor who was treating testator has been placed on record ... testator to make testament and for that, all steps which are required to be taken for making a valid testament must be proved by placing ... suspicious circumstances surrounding very execution of Will have not been cleared by any cogent evidence – Will, not being a valid document ... Mani, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. ... Order 41 CPC deals with appeals from original decrees. ... testator to make the testament and for that, all steps which are required to be taken for making a valid testament must be proved by placing

India - Supreme Court

2. Kasivisweswara Swami Temple, Rep. by the Executive Officer VS Syed Peeru Saheb S/o Syed Gafoor - 29 Nov 21

Point of law: Considerations in terms of Section 100 CPC arise only when there is substantial question of law and not mere such questions of law or one based on facts. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 7 is right in placing reliance on these rulings. However, it has to be borne in mind that in case of misapplication of law and improper appreciation of evidence on record, particularly the documentary evidence, it is the bounden duty of the High Court sitting in second appeal to consider such questions which are substantial in nature in terms of law. Similar situation is found in the present case where the learned appellate Judge miserably failed to appreciate the documentary evidence let in on behalf of the parties properly. There is complete misapplication and improper appreciation of fact vis-a-vis the law. These circumstances are sufficient for this Court to interfere in terms of Section 100 CPC.

However, it has to be borne in mind that in case of misapplication of law and improper appreciation of evidence on record

India - Andhra

3. Vikky VS State of H. P. - 02 Aug 21

Under Section 207, Cr.P.C., accused is entitled to copy of statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. only after concerned Court takes cognizance of offence. Still, there is no restriction or bar on an investigating agency to bring statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. to notice of concerned Court by handing over its copies or placing them on record along with status report.

(c) If such a fixed deposit is made in physical form, i.e., on paper, then the original ... agency to bring the statements recorded under section 164 CrPC to the notice of the concerned Court by handing over its copies or placing

India - Crimes

4. State of Maharashtra VS Sagar Vishwanath Borkar - 07 Sep 21

Point of Law – POCSO – Sentence - certificate under S. 65B(4) is unnecessary if the “original document” itself is produced, since it is being used as primary evidence of the information contained in the electronic record

Finding of the Court:Certificate under S. 65B(4) is unnecessary if the “original document ... ” itself is produced, since it is being used as primary evidence of the information contained in the electronic record - In considering ... Section 65B(1) differentiates between – i) the “original document” – the electronic record on the device in which the original information ... by “father” were in consonance with the original record and when this official (PW7) produced certified copy of Exh.21 and which ... document” itself is produced, since it is being used as primary evidence of the information contained in the electronic record.

India - Bombay

5. Government of Andhra Pradesh Thr. Principal Secretary VS Pratap Karan - 09 Oct 15

When all plaintiffs having equal shares in the suit property join in the suit and any of them dies during appeal before High Court, his non-substitution by his legal heirs will not abate the appeal in entirety because the estate will be fully and substantially represented by the other sharers as owners of the suit property. Letters Patent, wherever applicable, shall prevail over section 98, CPC.When the name of the original owner was recorded as owner of the suit property even in Record of right duly prepared in the year 1954-55 as evident from khasra-pahani, sudden removal of his name and substitution with name of State all of a sudden without any proceeding for Survey Settlement proceeding or preparation of record of right is illegal.

of right duly prepared in the year 1954-55 as evident from khasra-pahani, name of the original owner Raja Shivraj Bahadur was recorded ... – Plaintiff-respondents filing suit for correction and rectification of record of right in respect of S.No.613 measuring 373.22 ... and substitution with name of State all of a sudden without any proceeding for Survey Settlement proceeding or preparation of record ... These documents cannot be treated as document of title of the plaintiffs. ... No supplementary sethwar has been issued and there is no evidence on record that the original survey numbers i.e. 1 to 875, have ... The Record of right duly prepared in the year 1954-55, the name of the original owner Raja Shivraj Bahadur was recorded in Revenue

India - Supreme Court

6. State of Karnataka VS Govardhana Murthy @ Govardhan - 20 Mar 20

(1)When document’s attestation itself is doubtful, Trial Court ought not to have given importance to those documents and ought to have considered original documents which are available before Court.(2) Accused can be convicted for a lesser offence than one for which charge has been framed by Trial Court.

to have considered original documents which are available before Court. ... ’s attestation itself is doubtful and when those documents were attested by colleague of defence counsel saying that those documents ... are brought from Court and got those documents attested, Trial Court ought not to have given importance to those documents and ought ... and ought to have considered the original documents which are available before the Court. ... noticed and perused the original document of MLC register and both the previous entries and subsequent entries even though the same ... registered document.

India - Crimes

7. Aktiebolaget Volvo VS R. Venkatachalam - 18 May 09

Word produce as used in various legislations does not contemplate filing of original documents in court. It contemplates only production of original documents for inspection by the other party in court for comparison with copies there of.

and exempt such party from placing the original document on the file of the court and merely to give inspection thereof to the opposite ... hence it is not possible to file the original documents in this court. ... as used in section 62 of the evidence act – Means the original document - Necessarily follows that only the original is primary ... the Evidence Act while providing for proof of documents by primary evidence requires filing/placing of the original document on ... done, the endorsement/exhibit mark can be put on copy on court record also. ... and exempt such party from placing the original document on the file of the court and merely to give inspection thereof to the opposite

India - Current Civil Cases

8. Shankar Kumar Thakurta VS State of M. P. - 04 Aug 14

Sessions Judge, acting as a Court of original jurisdiction, could issue summons under section 193 on the basis of the records transmitted to him as a result of the committal order.

additional accused in sessions trial case after the case was committed to sessions Court — Sessions Judge acting as a Court of original ... jurisdiction could issue summons u/s 193 CrPC on the basis of records transmitted to him as a result of committal order — Revisionists ... It was alleged that by a forged document. ... summon other persons whose complicity in the commission of the trial could prima facie be gathered from the material available on record ... Learned Additional Sessions Judge placing

India - Crimes

9. P. Gopalkrishnan @ Dileep VS State of Kerala - 29 Nov 19

(1) All documents including “electronic record” produced for inspection of Court alongwith police report and which prosecution proposes to use against accused must be furnished to accused as per mandate of Section 207 of 1973 Code.(2) Furnishing of documents to accused under Section 207 of 1973 Code is a facet of right of accused to a fair trial enshrined in Article 21 of Constitution.(3) When statute is unambiguous, Court must adopt plain and natural meaning irrespective of consequences.

of Court – Contents of memory card/pen drive being electronic record must be regarded as a document – If prosecution is relying ... to accused – All documents including “electronic record” produced for inspection of Court alongwith police report and which prosecution ... clearly takes within its fold documentary evidence to mean and include all documents including electronic records produced for inspection ... A copy of an original document, or oral evidence as to the contents of that document, was considered admissible only in specified ... to be proved by production of the original document [As to the admissibility of examined or certified copies of public documents ... It is crystal clear that all documents including “electronic record” produced for the inspection

India - Supreme Court

10. Kalpana Mehta VS Union of India - 09 May 18

Parliamentary democracy in India is qualitatively distinct from the UK. Parliamentary Standing Committee report can be taken aid of for the purpose of interpretation of a statutory provision as also for existence of a historical fact.Judicial notice can be taken of the Parliamentary Standing Committee report under Section 57(4) of the Evidence Act and it is admissible under Section 74 of the said Act.In a litigation filed either under Article 32 or Article 136 of the Constitution of India, the report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee can be taken on record. However, the report cannot be impinged or challenged in a court of law.The Parliamentary Standing Committee report being in the public domain can invite fair comments and criticism from the citizens as in such a situation, the citizens do not really comment upon any member of the Parliament to invite the hazard of violation of parliamentary privilege.Reliance can be placed upon the report of a Parliamentary Standing Committee in proceedings under Article 32 or Article 136 of the Constitution;Once the report of a Parliamentary Committee has been published, reference to it in the course of judicial proceedings will not constitute a breach of parliamentary privilege;Validity of the report of a Parliamentary Committee cannot be called into question in the court. No Member of Parliament or person can be made liable for what is stated in the course of the proceedings before a Parliamentary Committee or for a vote tendered or given.A finding of fact by the court must be premised on the evidence adduced in the judicial proceeding.No Member of Parliament can be held liable for anything said by him in Parliament or in any committee. The reports submitted by Members of Parliament is also fully covered by protection.The course of proceedings of Parliament and the Legislature are facts of which judicial notice shall be taken by the Court.There is no requirement of any permission of Speaker of Lok Sabha for producing public documents as evidence in Court.That mere fact that document is admissible in evidence does not lead to draw any presumption that the contents of the documents are also true and correct.No party can be allowed to 'question' or 'impeach' report of Parliamentary Committee. The Constitution does not envisage supremacy of any of the three organs of the State. But, functioning of all the three organs is controlled by the Constitution. Wherever, interaction and deliberations among the three organs have been envisaged, a delicate balance and mutual respect are contemplated. All the three organs have to strive to achieve the constitutional goal set out for 'We the People'. Mutual harmony and respect have to be maintained by all the three organs to serve the Constitution under which we all live.Fair comments on report of the Parliamentary Committee are fully protected under the rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a). Admissibility of a Parliamentary Committee Report in evidence does not mean that facts stated in the Report stand proved.

forming the acts, or records of the acts of all Legislature is a public document – No permission required for producing these documents ... as evidence in Courts – However, admission of a document does not lead to draw any presumption that the contents of the documents ... being in the public domain – Admissible u/s 74 – Judicial notice can be taken of it u/s 57(4) – It can be taken on record – Open ... There can be no scintilla of doubt that the said document can be taken on record. ... According to Section 74 documents forming the acts, or records of the acts of Legislature of any part of India is a public document ... - The following documents are public documents :- (1) Documents forming the acts, or records of the acts

India - Supreme Court