unregistered document not admissible in evidenceunregistered document not admissible in evidence

36 of the (Indian) Stamp Act, Karnataka High Court pointed out in Nanda Behera v. Akhsaya Kumar Behera, 2017AIR (CC) 1893, relying on Javer Chand v. Pukhraj Surana, AIR 1961 SC 1655, and Yellapu Uma Maheswari v. Buddha Jagadheeswara Rao, (2015) 16 SCC 787, as under: Is Impounding totally Independent from Admissibility. Section 3514 is in the nature of a penal provision and has far-reaching effects. If a document is inadmissible in evidence for want of registration, none of its terms can be admitted in evidence and that to use a document for the purpose of proving an important clause would not be using it as a collateral purpose. P. 1 had not been examined. In the instant case, Respondent 1 has not been able to rebut the said presumption., If a Will has been registered, that is a circumstance which may, having regard to the circumstances, prove itsgenuineness. Any document filed by either party passes through three stages before it is held proved or disproved. While the Unregistered documents will not have the client's information registered in the database system . other cause. Such practices, when realised through the course of long period to be hindrances which impede steady and swift progress of trial proceedings, must be recast, or remoulded to give way for better substitutes which would help acceleration of trial proceedings. Specific Relief Act, 1877 (3 of 1877), or as evidence of. Our Apex Court held in Lachhmi Narain Singh v. Sarjug Singh, AIR 2021 SC 3873, as under: Our Procedural Codes do not specifically speak about it. Where a question as to the admissibility of a document is raised on the ground that it has not been stamped, or has not been properly stamped, it has to be decided then and there when the document is tendered in evidence. The bar contained in Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act being an. An unregistered document can be relied upon for collateral purpose i.e. division of joint properties by metes and bounds. Venkatachala40. if unregistered, is not admissible . Presumptions can be the (specific) presumptions under Sec. The recitals of the document in controversy already had been referred to supra. In such cases the court can refrain from acting upon such documents until regular evidence is tendered. Thus, the transaction or the past transactions cannot be proved by using the khararunama as evidence of the transaction. This has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in Korukonda Chalapathi Rao v. Korukonda Annapurna SampathKumar15: 36. Following documents are required by law to be attested by two or more attesting witnesses. In a suit for partition, an unregistered document can be relied upon for collateral purpose i.e. Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami: AIR 2003SC 4548; Dayamathi Baiv. K.M. 4:Common Law of TRUSTS in India. 35of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, it is held inPartap Singh v. Shiv Ram: AIR 2020 SC 1382, thatRecord-of-rights (Revenue document) carries the presumption of correctness. The contents are intended, Therefore, the best evidence rule requires examination of Registrar when one seeks to rebut or displace the presumption. (Sec. Author can be reached at <. InKaliya Vs. State of MP: 2013-10 SCC 758(relying on H. Siddiqui Vs. A. Ramalingam: AIR 2011 SC 1492, and Rasiklal Manikchand Vs. MSS Food Products: 2012-2 SCC 196) held as under: InLife Insurance Corporation of India Vs.Ram Pal Singh Bisen[2010-4 SCC 491], it isobserved as under: The Calcutta High Court quoting Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Ram Pal Singh Bisen [2010-4 SCC 491] it is observed in Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Vs. Smt. .. 19. EBC Publishing Pvt. On the other hand, a prompt objection does not prejudice the party tendering the evidence, for two reasons: firstly, it enables the court to apply its mind and pronounce its decision on the question of admissibility then and there; and secondly, in the event of finding of the court on the mode of proof sought to be adopted going against the party tendering the evidence, the opportunity of seeking indulgence of the court for permitting a regular mode or method of proof and thereby removing the objection raised by the opposite party, is available to the party leading the evidence. 56, 57 and 58 of the Evidence Act, when a document is admitted, separate proof need not be warranted. 52. ), 4. Co. v. Nitco Roadways Ltd.4, has elucidated this practice of marking of exhibits as follows: 6. Ordinarily, an objection to the admissibility of evidence should be taken when it is tendered and not subsequently. Illustration s (a) A is tried for the murder of B by beating him with a club with the intention of causing his death. 114(e). Admission of contentsmay dispense with proof;butprobative valuemay be less or nil. Ltd. All rights reserved. trial court rightly held the same to be inadmissible in evidence, we dont think that the Court would be entitled to admit the document because simply the parties say so, jurisdiction of the Court flows from Sec. Hence, there is a need for diligence on the part of the Court having regard to the statutory obligation under Section 33 of the Karnataka Stamp Act. Government Advocate, High Court of Bombay at Goa, Standing Counsel, Income Tax Department, High Court Counsel to the Official Liquidator. Act can be used to prove the existence and genuineness/truth of a document. Author can be reached at . Shah and Krishna Murari was dealing with the appeal challenging the impugned judgment and order passed by the Allahabad HC by which the High Court dismissed the second Mortgage deed: section 59 of the T P Act. It is held inKalita Iqbal Basith v. N Subbalakshmi, (2021) 2 SCC 718, as regards official/public document, marked without objection, as under: EFFECT OF MARKING DOCUMENTS WITHOUT OBJECTION. (2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government. While reading the record the parties and the court should be able to know which was the document before the witness when it was deposing. UNREGISTERED DO CUMENTS Difference between Registered & Unregistered Documents. See: Union Of India Vs. Virendra Bharti: 2011-2 ACC 886, 2010 ACJ 2353; Rakhal Chakraborty Vs. Sanjib Kumar Roy: 1998-1 GauLR 253, 1997-2 GauLT 705), Internal evidenceafforded by the contents of the document; a link in a chain of correspondence; recipient of the documen. document.title = 'Admissibility of Documentary Evidence in Civil Proceedings in India | SCC Blog' (See: Achuthan Pillai vs Marikar (Motors) Ltd., AIR 1983 Ker 81, 1976 Cr.LJ 1507; 2016 (1) Gau. 13. The Karnataka High Court held in Smt. Illegal aliens who commit document fraud, use SSNs that do not belong to them, and falsify I-9 forms under penalty of perjury clearly are not ordinary law-abiding residents. 86. 56, 57 and 58 of the Evidence Act, when a document is admitted, separate proof need not be warranted. (i) by oral evidence of one who can vouchsafe the same, (ii) by invoking circumstantial evidence or presumption or. (b) Where the document is by itself admissible in evidence, but the objection is directed towards the mode of proof alleging the same to be irregular or insufficient. The expression exhibit is not defined in the Code of Civil Procedure, 19081. A document would beadmissible on basis of the recitalsmade in the document andnot on basis of the pleadingsraised by the parties. The Supreme Court on Friday ruled that an unregistered document/agreement to sell shall not be admissible as evidence in Permanent Injunction Suit. L.R. InSait Tarajee Khimchand v. Yelamarti Satyam, AIR 1971 SC 1865, the Supreme Court observed that mere marking of documents (day book and ledger) as exhibits do not dispense with theproof of documents. 61 of the Indian stamp act reads as under: Explanation.This section shall not enable any person to give evidence of a fact which he is disentitled to prove by any provision of the law for the time being in force relating to Civil Procedure. InYogesh Kumar Sikka v. Monika (2019) the P & H High Court held as under: Should Court Sit Silentand QuestionUnstamped DocumentAfterwards, Though Smt. Section 163 of the Evidence Act, reads as under: Order XI rule 15 and Order XII rule 8 are the provisions in the CPC, to give notice to the other party to produce documents (for inspection and show court, respectively). Production, Admission in Evidence and Proof of Documents. The onus of proof, thus, would be on a person who questions the same.. We may also point out that this measure would not cause any prejudice to the parties to the litigation and would not add to their misery or expenses. They include: UPSHOT: Inasmuch as(a) mere marking of a documenton admissionwill not (invariably), amount to proof, or evidence of the contents of the document or its truth; (b) theprobative valueof a document marked without objection islow or nil,for want of proper proof; and (c) there is aformal defectto the document for it is a secondary evidence because it is produced without adducing foundational evidence,it is legitimate to say that before taking an adverse stance as to proof in this count, thecourt should give an opportunity to the partywho relies on the documentto cure the deficiency. In such circumstances, it would result in loss of revenue to the exchequer. [Sec 41 Code of Criminal Procedure] When can a police officer arrest a person without a warrant? Instead, the client can go to jail for that. Shaffi, 2004 SC 4082, Bhagyarathi Das v. Agadhu Charan Das,62 (1986) CLT 298, Budhi Mahal v. Gangadhar Das, 46 (1978) CLT 287 etc.] under S. 114, Evd. it is not permissible for the court to allow a party to adduce secondary evidence, The court has an obligation to decide the question of admissibility of a document in secondary evidence before making endorsement thereon, omission before the lower Courts to object. 17. Jury finds Donald Trump guilty in sexual abuse case, Doctor stabbed to death: Know what the High Court said on Kerala doctor killed by accused, What is precedent: Obiter Dicta and Ratio Decidendi explained, Challenges for listed companies in conducting Annual General Meeting through video-conferencing, The Castaways Resolution Applicants under the IBC, Tenability of Successive Complaints Based on Similar Facts for Dishonour of Cheque under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and Cheating under Section 420 IPC. Sec. However, the Calcutta High Court in Dipak Kumar Singh v. Park Street Properties (P) Limited, AIR 2014 Cal 167, distinguished K.B. Usually, this stage arrives at the final hearing of the suit or proceeding. 2008 SCC OnLine Bom 1017, paras 77-81. Once a document has been admittedin evidence, as aforesaid, 24. Section 33 of the Stamp Act castsaduty on the Court to examinethe document to find out whether it isduly stamped or not, irrespective of the fact whether an objection to its marking is raised or not, whether the court should be unfailingly diligent enough not to mark an unstamped or insufficiently stamped document,or, whether the court should sit silent and mark the document if it is not opposed, or. Unregistered Relinquishment Deed Is Not Admissible As Evidence. 2. Admission of a document in evidence is not to be confused with proof of a document. 35 properly comes into play, an entry made by a public servant in any public or official book in thedischarge of his official dutybecomes relevant by itself, andno other proof of such entry is requiredas a matter of law by our Evidence Act, but this, does not exclude the possibility that such an entry may become admissible otherwise if it is properly proved to have been made by a person ordinarily competent to make it. (Quoted in Mayadhar Nayak vs Sub-Divisional Officer, Jajpur, AIR 1982 Ori 221). Secondary evidence relating to the contents of a document is inadmissible, until the non-production of the original is accounted for. Parties to litigation, where such a controversy is raised, have to be circumspect and the party challenging the admissibility of the document has to be alert to see that the document is not admitted in evidence by the court. Vs Suchi Khanna, 2008-10 ADJ 426; 2009-75 AllLR 34; 2009-1 AWC 929). Admission of a document in evidence is different from proof of its contents. The principle that when a document is marked without objection its contents stand proved is derived from Section 58 of Evidence Act, 1872. 47). When so recast, the practice which can be a better substitute is this: Whenever an objection is raised during evidence taking stage regarding the admissibility of any material or item of oral evidence the trial court can make a note of such objection and mark the objected document tentatively as an exhibit in the case (or record the objected part of the oral evidence) subject to such objections to be decided at the last stage in the final judgment. The omission to object becomes fatal because by his failure the party entitled to object allows the party tendering the evidence to act on an assumption that the opposite party is not serious about the mode of proof. A-10 in accordance with law. Coram: 1 .document is unregistered relinquishment deed and the same is not admissible in evidence on the ground of non-registration and also on the ground that the same is insufficiently stamped. Provided that an unregistered document affecting. Such an order is not one of those judicial orders which are liable to be reviewed or revised by the same court or a court of superior jurisdiction. Once a document has been admitted in evidence, as aforesaid, it is not open either to the trial court itself or to a court of appeal or revision to go behind that order. It is held as under: UNREGISTEREDDOCUMENTSEffect of MarkingWithout Objection. It is available to be raised even at later stage of the suit or even in appeal or revision. The views expressed are not the personal views of EBC Publishing Pvt. severancy of title, nature of possession of various shares but not for the primary purpose i.e. It reads as under: In Jainab Bibi Saheb v. Hyderally Saheb, (1920) 38 MLJ 532, it was pointed out thatneither an omission by an advocate to objectto giving of irrelevant and inadmissible evidencenor the failure of the tribunalto exclude it of its own motion wouldvalidate a decree based on materialwhich the Evidence Act declares to beinherently and in substance irrelevantto the issue. 15. Modes of Proof of Documents (as to, both, formal proof and truth of the contents) include the following: IV. The views expressed are not the personal views of EBC Publishing Pvt. The learned Judge observed (at pages 946 and 947) : It (Section 67 Evidence Act) only says that facts have to be proved, and, unlike Section 68, does not prescribe any particular mode of proof. 114 that is, common course of natural events, human conduct etc. Providedthat the Court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved. Assuming that it is possible to take different view or work out different procedure as suggested in Bipin Shantilal Panchal33, as long as principle laid down in P.C. Secondary-evidenceMarked Without Objection Objection stands waived. They are: II. At As trial the following facts are in issue: As beating B with the club; As causing Bs death by such beating; As intention to cause Bs death. In the latter case, the objection should be taken when the evidence is tendered and once the document has been admitted in evidence and marked as an exhibit, the objection that it should not have been admitted in evidence or that the mode adopted for proving the document is irregular cannot be allowed to be raised at any stage subsequent to the marking of the document as an exhibit. The facts required to be proved under Section 67can be proved byany kind of evidence, and there is nothing in the section to indicate that theevidence furnished by the registration certificateby virtue of Sub-section (2) of Section 60 of the Registration Act and by the presumption in Illustration (e) of Section 114 of the Evidence Act, is to be excluded., We have no hesitation in endorsing the view of the learned Judge as laying down the correct law on the question if we may say so with respect., The deed of sale dated 29.6.1978 was a registered one. Basheer, AIR 2015 SC 180, our Apex Court held as under: Order VII rule 14, Order VIII rule 8A and Order XIII rule 1say as to Production of documentsin court. The principles in the proviso apply to category of documents that require specific evidence as to proof of its contents (other than the mere statements in the document). The duties discharged by the registering officer do not include attestation or verification of attestation of will as required by the rules enacted bySection 63of the Succession Act. Thereafter the trial court shall consider the same for collateral purpose subject to proof and relevance.. Therefore,when it is brought to the notice of the Courtthat a document is insufficiently stamped, the Court exercising its power under S. 33 of the Act has to pass an order at the first instance for impounding the document. IF the TRUTH is IN ISSUEmereproof of handwritingor execution not evidence of truth: IF the TRUTH of the facts stated in a document is IN ISSUEmere proof of the hand-writing and execution of the document would not furnish evidence of the truth of the facts or contents of the document. At the most,marking exhibitmay amount to proof of contents, but not its truth. 1 Answer. document.querySelector('meta[name="description"]').setAttribute("content", "Understand the admissibility of evidence in civil proceedings, objections to documentary evidence and how to mark exhibits in court in India. The reason is that if the Court allows the objection, the party tendering the evidence may take such steps as may be advised to get the lacunae remedied. Ltd. and do not constitute legal advice. An endorsement by registering officer is not by itself a proof of the will having been duly executed and attested. Once the document is admitted in evidence and is used in cross-examination, the document gets proved and can be read in evidence. Opinion of a person who isacquaintedwith the writing of the person who signed or wrote (Sec. Mode of proof (not inherent admissibility) falls within the realm of procedural law. (c) there is a formal defect to the document for it is a secondary evidence because it is produced without adducing foundational evidence. Muruga Mudallar v. Subba Reddiar, 1950 SCC OnLine Mad 136. S. 65, Evidence Act enumerates the instances where a party is entitled to furnish secondary evidence. The High Court of Delhi in Sudir Engg. sale between the plaintiff and defendant or its terms. 1. Admissibility & probative value two matters. It is observed in Government of Bengal v. Santiram Mondal, AIR 1930 Cal 370, with respect to a document used under Sec. Second is that the superior court, when the same objection is recanvassed and reconsidered in appeal or revision against the final judgment of the trial court, can determine the correctness of the view taken by the trial court regarding that objection, without bothering to remit the case to the trial court again for fresh disposal. .. In other words, mere marking of exhibit on a document does dispense with its proof, which is required to be done in accordance with law. document.getElementById( "ak_js_1" ).setAttribute( "value", ( new Date() ).getTime() ); A document that is used in court has to pass through three steps, mere proof of the hand-writing and execution. The Appellant/original Defendant challenged the order of the Madras HC before the Supreme Court inter alia on the ground that the unregistered Agreement could not be admitted in evidence given the insertion of sub-section (g) to Section 17(1) of the Registration Act by the State Amendment. ), being in the nature of a relinquishment deed, was not admissible in evidence for want of registration. 2008 SCC OnLine Bom 1017, paras 68, 94 and 95. (a) Proof of execution may be enough: Its Contents stand proved: Exhibiting of documents in evidence without objection amounts to admission of its contents. The attempt to procure certified copies from the municipality was also unsuccessful as they were informed that the original files were not traceable. Marking of Document liable to be Objected on Mode or Manner of Proof. 294 of the CrPCalso confers such authority to court. Rewrite the default initializeRequest for handling mutipart uploads so just before upload change the multipart value to true in all other cases such as login set it to false. Nandkishore Lalbhai Mehta Vs.New Era Fabrics: AIR 2015 SC 3796;Birad Mal SinghviVs. When called upon to form a judicial opinion whether a document has been proved, disproved, or not proved the court would look not at the document alone or only at the statement of the witness standing in the box; it would take into consideration probabilities of the case as emerging from the whole record. The secondary evidence must be authenticated by foundational evidence that the alleged copy is in fact a true copy of the original. Achuthanandan v. P.J. Therefore, the documentary evidence is required to be proved in accordance with law. CHAPTER III of the Indian Evidence Act (Section 56 to 58) lays down Facts Which Need Not Be Proved. Nidhi Singh elaborates on meticulous effort, rationale approach and innovation needed for legal excellence, In conversation with Faizal Latheef on counsel practice and legal opportunities in the Middle East, Kerala High Court bats for safe sex education in schools and colleges. III. held that the unregistered partition deed was admissiblenot for proving termsof the partition or as the source of title,but forthe purpose ofshowing that there was a disruption (division/severance) in status and that no suit for partition would lieon the basis that the properties were still joint family properties. Registered deed: Presumption Validly Executed. An unstamped instrument is not admissible in evidence even for collateral purpose, until the same is impounded. 17, 21, 58, 67, 70). Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. 17. A document that is used in court has to pass through three steps. In Kalyan Singh, Vs. Chhoti (AIR 1990 SC 396) it is observed as under: 5. Partition Deed Admissible to see Severance & No Suit for Partition lie. In an order delivered on September 23, 2022, the apex court said that such a document can be used for collateral purposes, but not as evidence in a suit seeking specific performance. Thimmappa Rai v. Ramanna Rai,(2007) 14 SCC 63. 2. Deferring the question of proof and admissibility of documents to an uncertain date in the future is neither in the interests of justice nor does it subserve the object of expedition. P. 2 a copy of the birth extract made on the basis of Ex, P. 1, were not sufficient to raise presumption of paternity for, the medical officer who made the entries in Ex.