Inadmissible evidence cannot be cured by silence at tender, and remand is proper if it may have affected the finding.

A deed executed by a living person was held inherently inadmissible under the law of evidence, and that defect was not cured merely because no objection was raised when it was tendered. The court's duty to exclude inadmissible material was emphasised, so the document could not be relied on in deciding the suit. Where the lower appellate court had substantially relied on that document, and it was unclear how far it influenced the finding, remand for reconsideration without the inadmissible evidence was proper. The remand was therefore upheld and the matter was to be decided afresh without the document.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a gift deed executed by a person who was alive was admissible in evidence under the law of evidence merely because no objection was taken when it was tendered; (ii) whether the appellate court was justified in remanding the case after the lower appellate court had relied upon that document.

Issue (i): Whether a gift deed executed by a person who was alive was admissible in evidence under the law of evidence merely because no objection was taken when it was tendered.

Analysis: The document was not admissible under the rule governing statements of persons who are dead, because the maker was alive. The absence of an objection at the time of tender did not make an inherently inadmissible document evidence for the purpose of deciding the suit. The duty to exclude irrelevant or inadmissible material rested on the court, and such a defect could not be cured by omission of objection.

Conclusion: The document remained inadmissible in evidence notwithstanding the absence of objection.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellate court was justified in remanding the case after the lower appellate court had relied upon that document.

Analysis: The lower appellate court had given substantial weight to the inadmissible deed in reaching its conclusion. In second appeal, it was not possible to determine with certainty how far that material had influenced the appellate finding, or whether the result would have been the same without it. In those circumstances, remand for reconsideration without the inadmissible document was proper.

Conclusion: The remand order was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, and the matter was left to be decided afresh by the lower appellate court without considering the inadmissible document.

Ratio Decidendi: A document that is inherently inadmissible in evidence cannot become admissible merely because no objection was taken when it was tendered, and where such a document may have materially influenced the finding, remand for reconsideration without it is justified.

---