https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469202 Proof of a document's execution or handwriting does not by itself make its contents admissible without the writer or signatory being called, because documentary proof under the Evidence Act is distinct from proving the truth or probative value of those contents. The Court stated that contents may be proved only through primary or secondary evidence and that the oral-evidence rule should not be imported into documentary evidence. However, it declined to depart from binding Division Bench precedent in the matter before it, and the postcard was not admitted in evidence. en-us Fri, 23 Jun 1967 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 10 Jun 2026 12:43:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469202 Proof of a document's execution or handwriting does not by itself make its contents admissible without the writer or signatory being called, because documentary proof under the Evidence Act is distinct from proving the truth or probative value of those contents. The Court stated that contents may be proved only through primary or secondary evidence and that the oral-evidence rule should not be imported into documentary evidence. However, it declined to depart from binding Division Bench precedent in the matter before it, and the postcard was not admitted in evidence. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 23 Jun 1967 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469202