Relevance of evidence in testamentary proceedings: irrelevant affidavit portions on title and property disputes were excluded from evidence.

Evidence in testamentary proceedings is limited to matters in issue, namely due execution of the will and the testator's state of mind. Portions of an affidavit-in-lieu of examination-in-chief dealing with the deceased's residential address and disputes over ancestral title or the bequeathability of properties were irrelevant, because title disputes cannot be decided in testamentary jurisdiction. Order 18 Rules 2 and 4 of the CPC did not expand the scope of evidence beyond what the party was bound to prove, and section 136 of the Evidence Act allowed the court to exclude irrelevant material. The court also accepted that the application was maintainable in its inherent jurisdiction and held that the impugned passages were not to be read in evidence, with no cross-examination required on them.

---

---

Issues: Whether paragraphs 3, 4 and 13 to 17 of the affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief could be excluded from evidence as irrelevant to the issues in the testamentary proceedings.

Analysis: The only issues framed in the testamentary proceedings concerned due execution of the will and the testator's state of mind. Evidence relating to the deceased's residential address, and to disputes over whether particular properties were ancestral or capable of being bequeathed, did not bear upon those issues. The challenge to title could not be adjudicated in testamentary jurisdiction. Order 18 Rule 2 required evidence to be led in support of the issues a party was bound to prove, and Order 18 Rule 4 did not enlarge that scope merely because the examination-in-chief was filed by affidavit. Section 136 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1871 authorised the Court to admit only relevant evidence, and the Court could prevent irrelevant evidence from entering the record. The application was maintainable under the Court's inherent powers, and the objections based on the Original Side Rules were rejected.

Conclusion: The impugned portions of the affidavit were held irrelevant and were directed not to be read in evidence, with no cross-examination required on those portions.

---