TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Document without Witnesses not Admitted as Evidence: Appellant's Property Claim Upheld</h1> <h3>Rosammal Issetheenammal Fernandez (Dead) By Lrs. and Ors. Versus Joosa Mariyan Fernandez and Ors.</h3> The Supreme Court held that due to a clear denial of the execution of Exhibit B-1 and the absence of attesting witnesses, the document could not be ... - Issues:- Admissibility of Exhibit B-1 in evidence under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act.Analysis:1. The appellants filed a suit for partition, claiming a share in the property based on a custom in the Roman Catholic Christian community. The trial court dismissed the suit, stating the custom was not proven. The Appellate Court remanded the case for fresh determination, leading to the trial court decreeing the suit based on the alleged custom and disbelieving the execution of Exhibit B-1 and Exhibit B-2.2. The High Court, however, held that the issue of custom was irrelevant as per the Indian Succession Act, but focused on the execution of Exhibit B-1. The High Court found that since there was no specific denial of Exhibit B-1 by the plaintiff, the proviso to Section 68 of the Evidence Act applied, allowing the document to be admitted as evidence.3. The High Court's finding was challenged, arguing that there was a clear denial of the execution of Exhibit B-1 in the pleadings. The judgment highlighted that the denial was evident in the pleadings, stating that the defendants forged the signature of the father on the document. This strong denial meant that the proviso to Section 68 should not apply.4. Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act mandates the production of at least one attesting witness for documents that require attestation. The proviso states that if the execution of a registered document is not specifically denied, the obligation to produce an attesting witness is withdrawn. In this case, the denial of Exhibit B-1's execution by the plaintiff meant the proviso did not apply.5. The Supreme Court concluded that since there was a clear denial of the execution of Exhibit B-1 and no attesting witnesses were produced, the document could not be tendered as evidence. Consequently, the High Court's decision was set aside, and the appellant's claim to a share in the property succeeded. The appeal was partly allowed, with costs imposed on the parties.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
