Value of just photocopy in secondary evidence.
Sanjay Dhiman
(Querist) 27 October 2011
This query is : Resolved
i being plaintiff challenged the 'will', in defense the defendant, in Secondary evi. produced just photocopy, which is even not certified copy, whether it is admissible in evidence or cannot be weighted much, Plz let me know the citation, i will be highly obliged for the same.
ajay sethi
(Expert) 27 October 2011
inorder to lead secondary evidence evidence has to be led by plaintiff to show why original will is not being produced . whether it has been lost? when was photocpy taken . ? was photocopy taken by the plaintiff ? unless and untill detailed explanation given photocpy will not be addmissible in evidence
Devajyoti Barman
(Expert) 27 October 2011
Instead you read carefully the relevant provisions dealing with the documentary evidence as enshrined in the Evidence Act.
You would get the answer.
Unless the other party admits or the person relying on photocopy completes the formality of section 65 of the Act, it is not exhibited.
Shonee Kapoor
(Expert) 27 October 2011
very difficult, but you can try.
Regards,
Shonee Kapoor
harassed.by.498a@gmail.com
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 27 October 2011
yes section 65 of evidence Act is the relevant law on your issue.If the will is registered then as a certified copy can be obtained ,the photo copy shall not be admissible.In case it was unregistered and the original if was in his custody and the loss of original is proved by him,the photo copy shall be admissible in evidence.It shall also be admissible when the original is in such a custody who is out of reach of court's process and it would also admissible if original is proved to be in your own custody.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 27 October 2011
Supreme Court of India
Kalidindi Venkata Subbaraju & Ors vs Chintalapati Subbaraju & Ors on 21 November, 1967
Equivalent citations: 1968 AIR 947, 1968 SCR (2) 292
Bench: Shelat
PETITIONER:
KALIDINDI VENKATA SUBBARAJU & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
CHINTALAPATI SUBBARAJU & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
21/11/1967
BENCH:
SHELAT, J.M.
BENCH:
SHELAT, J.M.
SHAH, J.C.
SIKRI, S.M.
CITATION:
1968 AIR 947 1968 SCR (2) 292
CITATOR INFO :
R 1983 SC 684 (141)
ACT:
Indian Evidence Act (1 of 1872), ss. 32(5) and (6), 65 and 90-Statement as to age in will--If relevant--Scope of the words 'Before the question in issue was raised'-Copy of will admitted as secondary evidence--Due execution of original will proved--If contents of copy could be relied on--Presumption under s. 90--If could be drawn with respect to copy.
Will-On whom burden of proving due execution lies- Discrepancy between body and schedule-Effect of. Birth register-Original not produced Endorsement relating to absence of entries-Writer of endorsement not examined-If endorsement admissible in evidence.
