Unmarked document
Dr C Suresh
(Querist) 07 June 2012
This query is : Resolved
Sir can you please give me citation of Hon Supreme Court judgment declaring that Unmarked Documents cannot be taken as evidence and it cannot be relied upon.
Thank you sir
Devajyoti Barman
(Expert) 08 June 2012
It is the law and to cite law no citation is required.
Dr C Suresh
(Querist) 08 June 2012
Sir can you please guide me as to under what law an unmarked document cannot be taken as evidence
Ajay Gulati
(Expert) 08 June 2012
its under the Evidence Act, the act says that there is a way to prove a document and a document not proved before the court cannot be relied upon by the court, however u may refer to following case law
Evidence Act, 1872 -- Sections 61, 67, 17 & 109 -- Contents of document -- Proof of -- Rent receipts, evidentiary value -- Mere production and marking of a document as exhibit by the court cannot be held to be a due proof of its contents -- Its execution has to be proved by admissible evidence -- Exhibition of rent received after admission, burden of proof -- Suit for recovery of possession of suit premises on allegation of taking wrongful and forcible possession by respondent defendant -- Specific plea of tenancy based on rent receipts with thumb impressions of original landlady on stamps affixed on them and endorsements of plaintiff by putting his signatures on back portions of rent receipts -- Defendant denied that he had trespassed into suit premises -- Plaintiff did not make any consequential amendment to his plaint and offered no explanation how blank printed rent receipts came to be thumb marked and signed on their back portions by plaintiff -- No further burden of proof on defendant to lead additional evidence in proof of writing on rent receipts and its due execution by deceased landlady -- High Court being first court of appeal, was fully justified in upsetting judgment of trial court resulting in dismissal of suit -- Civil Procedure Code, 1908 -- Section 96, Order 12 Rules 2-A & 6.
HELD: The legal position is not in dispute that mere production and marking of a document as exhibit by the court cannot be held to be a due proof of its contents. Its execution has to be proved by admissible evidence that is by the `evidence of those persons who can vouchsafe for the truth of the facts in issue'. The situation is, however, different where the documents are produced, they are admitted by the opposite party, signatures on them and also admitted and they are marked thereafter as exhibits by the court. We find no force in the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant that as the mark of exhibits has been put on the back portions of the rent receipts near the place where the admitted signatures of the plaintiff appear, the rent receipts as a whole cannot be treated to have been exhibited as an admitted documents.
The High Court rightly took a view that in face of the specific plea of tenancy by the tenant based on rent receipts, onus of proof, in fact, lay on the plaintiff to explain how blank printed rent receipts came to be signed by him on their back portions. We have extracted above the relevant pleadings in the plaint. What has been pleaded is that certain signed stamped blank papers were given to the defendant to be used for the pending litigations of the landlady and for administration of her estate. The plaintiff failed to lead any evidence to show what were those pending litigations and what was the occasion and necessity to sign printed blank receipts at their back by the plaintiff.
The High Court being the first court of appeal was fully within its powers to re-examine and re-appreciate the documentary and oral evidence. It could come to a conclusion contrary to the one reached by the trial court. As discussed above, we find that the High Court was fully justified in taking a contrary view as it did and upsetting the judgment of the trial court resulting in dismissal of the suit.
Narbada Devi Gupta v. Birendra Kumar Jaiswal[Bench Strength 2004 AIR(SC) 175: 2003(8) SCC 745: [Shivaraj V. Patil, J.: D.M. Dharmadhikari, J.]
Dr C Suresh
(Querist) 08 June 2012
Thank you sirs as always for your help and guidance
R.K Nanda
(Expert) 08 June 2012
No more to add.
J K Agrawal
(Expert) 08 June 2012
Dear Mr Suresh
It hardly makes any difference that a document is marked or not. The only material thing is it should be "produced" before the Court for its "inspection". It is definition of Evidence as per section 3.
After producing the document it comes that the Court may either presume it to be proved or may require a proof thereof.
If the court requires proof of a document the answer of MR Ajai Gulati comes into play.
Marking or not marking does not make any effect. It is duty of the Court to mark a document and the purpose is only to identify a document by a serial number.
Generally The Courts are not clear on this issue and they make it a big issue.
The main thing is that it is proved or not or the Court presume it proved or not.
in both cases (either proved or not) the document comes in definition of "evidence".
