Is TRUTH OF CONTENTS (also) Established when a Document is MARKED WITHOUT OBJECTION?

Taken From: Can the Court Refuse to Mark a (Relevant and Admissible) Document, for (i) there is No Formal Proof or (ii) it is a Photocopy?

Saji Koduvath, Advocate, Kottayam.

Documents Marked Without Objection – Effect

The law prevails in India is the following –

If a document is marked without objection as to its mode of proof, it is not open to the other side to object to its admissibility afterwards.

Following leading decisions predicate the law in this matter as under:

P.C. Purushothama Reddiar v. S. Perumal,(1972) 1 SCC 9 (Three Judge Bench – A.N. Grover, K.S. Hegde, A.N. Ray, JJ.)	Police reports were marked, without examining the Head Constables who covered those meetings, without any objection. Hence it was not open to the respondent to object to their admissibility.	Relied on: Bhagat Ram v. Khetu Ram, AIR 1929 PC 110.
R.V.E. Venkatchalla Gounder v. Arulmighu Viswesaraswamy and V.P. Temple, (2003) 8 SCC 752 (R.C. Lahoti, Ashok Bhan, JJ.)	Photo copies were admitted in evidence ‘without foundation‘; but, without objection. They cannot be held inadmissible for originals were not produced. Failure to raise a timely objection amounts to waiver.	Relied on: Padman v. Hanwanta, AIR 1915 PC 111 P.C. Purushothama Reddiar v. S. Perumal
Smt. Dayamathi Bai v. K.M. Shaffi, AIR 2004 SC 4082	Copy of sale deed was marked without examining the executant or the donor; but, without objection. It was argued that mode of proof was insufficient. Held: Objection as to the mode of proof falls within procedural law. It could be waived.	Relied on: Gopal Das v. Sri Thakurji R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder; Gopal Das v. Sri Thakurji, AIR 1943 PC 83; Sarkar on Evidence, 15th Edition, page 1084.
PC Thomas v. PM Ismail, AIR 2010 SC 905; 2009-10 SCC 239 (R.M. Lodha, D.K. Jain,JJ.).	Non-examination of the author and absence of “proof of acknowledgment” by him – If no objection on ‘mode of proof‘ in trial court, it will be too late (in appeal) to raise objection on the ground of mode of proof.	…
Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of N. C. T. of Delhi), 2023 4 SCC 731 (B. V. Nagarathna, V. Ramasubramanian, A. S. Bopanna, B. R. Gavai, S. Abdul Nazeer, JJ.)	If no objection as to mode of proof (secondary evidence) when marked, no such objection could be allowed to be raised at any later stage.	…
Rafia Sultan v. Oil And Natural Gas Commission (I.C. Bhatt, S.B. Majmudar, JJ.), 1986 ACJ 616; 1986 Guj LH 27; 1985-2 GujLR 1315	No objection as regards the truth* of contents* of Ex. 32. The witness of the defendant accepted the contents. Therefore, too late in the day to canvass that contents of Ex. 32 were not proved.	…

Failure to Raise Timely Objection, “Amounts to Waiver“

In RVE Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami, AIR 2003 SC 4548: 2003-8 SCC 752 it is laid down that “failure to raise timely objection” as to the irregularity of mode adopted for proving the document “amounts to waiver“.

Therefore it is clear that ‘objection’ is a matter that primarily remains in the realm of the opposite party; rather than the court.

It is typically followed in India, after R.V.E. Venkatchalla Gounder v. Arulmighu Viswesaraswamy and V.P. Temple (supra).

Note: 1. If the deficiency is pertaining to non-registration of a compulsory registrable document (as it falls under the head, inadmissible document) the court can desist the marking of the document.
2. By virtue of the decision, G. M. Shahul Hameed v. Jayanthi R. Hegde, AIR 2024 SC 3339, unless the court has not applied its mind to the insufficiency of stamp, and unless there is a ‘judicial determination‘, the objection thereof can be raised at any time.

In RVE Venkatachala Gounder (supra), our Apex Court held as under:

“Ordinarily an objection to the admissibility of evidence should be taken when it is tendered and not subsequently. The objections as to admissibility of documents in evidence may be classified into two classes:
- (i) an objection that the document which is sought to be proved is itself inadmissible in evidence; and
- (ii) where the objection does not dispute the admissibility of the document in evidence but is directed towards the mode of proof alleging the same to be irregular or insufficient.
In the first case, merely because a document has been marked as ‘an exhibit’, an objection as to its admissibility is not excluded and is available to be raised even at a later stage or even in appeal or revision. …. Out of the two types of objections, referred to hereinabove, in the later case, failure to raise a prompt and timely objection amounts to waiver of the necessity for insisting on formal proof of a document, the document itself which is sought to be proved being admissible in evidence. In the first case, acquiescence would be no bar to raising the objection in superior Court.”

Proof of Document is, normally, Proof of (both) Execution and Contents

When existence of a document is proved (either by admission or by proof), normally, contents thereof are also taken as proved.

In most cases, ‘proof of execution’ may lead the court to presume ‘proof of truth’. But, it is not a rigid rule, for it falls under the caption, “appreciation of evidence”.
Evidence Act does not expressly proffer anything as to “TRUTH of contents” of documents. It is left to the discretion (Sec. 3) of the court. In proper cases court is expressly authorised to presume (Sec. 114) truth.

For the above, by virtue of our procedure-laws (especially, Sec. 3 and 114 Evidence Act) and the law handed down by our Apex Court, the Courts are free to appraise a “marked” document as under:

1. Mere marking does not amount to proof of contents (even), or
2. Contents and ‘Truth of its Contents’, stand proved, or
3. Admission of contents; not truth of contents (especially when truth is in issue), or
4. Admission of contents and truth of contents; but, its probative value is small or nil.

Admission by the other side, Proves Contents – No Blindfold Application

Court has wide powers under Sec. 165 of Evidence Act to require, evidence to prove a document marked on ‘admission’. Besides the powers under Sec. 165, the Procedural Acts show that the courts have jurisdiction to require the party concerned to prove admitted-documents. It is evident from the ‘Provisos’ of –

Sec. 58 of Evidence Act
O. XII, r. 2A Proviso, CPC and
Sec. 294 of the CrPC.

The Courts are free to refrain from acting upon any document, in the particular nature of a case, especially when the Court feels that injustice will be resulted by the blindfold application of this principle (admission of a document by the other side, proves its contents also), for it falls under the sphere, “appreciation of evidence”. It is the reason why the courts deviate from the general principles in certain cases, in the peculiar circumstances of those cases, saying –

(i) Contents are ‘not proved’ (Though signature Proved)
(ii) Truth of contents are ‘not proved’ (Though contents Proved)
(iii) Probative value is small or nil (Though contents and truth Proved).

Proof must be by one who can Vouchsafe for Truth – Not Beseem in All Cases

The normal rule as to proof of execution is made clear in Narbada Devi Gupta v. Birendra Kumar Jaiswal, 2003-8 SCC 745, under the following words –

“Its execution has to be proved by admissible evidence, that is, by the evidence of those persons who can vouchsafe for the truth of the facts in issue”.
See: Assistant Commissioner of Customs v. Edwin Andrew Minihan, ILR 2024-1 Ker 596; 2023-7 KHC 512; 2024-1 KLT 24.

This “normal principle” (that proof must be by one who can vouchsafe for truth), is not invariably followed – e.g., a letter or a deed obtained by a witness in ‘due/common course’. In such cases, if only ‘truth’ as to the contents of the documents is in dispute, this rule is insisted.

Admission is a Mode of Proof; ‘Facts Admitted Need Not be Proved’

Usually, a document is proved through its author, or through a witness to its execution or a person acquainted with handwriting. Concession or admission by the opposite side is an acceptable form of proving documents in evidence (under Sec. 17, 21, 58, 59 Evidence Act).

Sec. 58, Evidence Act reads as under:

“58. Facts admitted need not be proved: No fact need be proved in any proceeding which the parties thereto or their agents agree to admit at the hearing, or which, before the hearing, they agree to admit by any writing under their hands, or which by any rule or pleading in force at the time they are deemed to have admitted by their pleadings:
Provided that the Court may, in its discretion, require the facts admitted to be proved otherwise than by such admissions.”

Sec. 58 says that no fact need be proved in any proceeding in three circumstances:

the parties or their agents agree to admit at the hearing
before the hearing, they agree to admit by any writing under their hands
by any rule of pleading they are deemed to have admitted by their pleadings.

“Hearing” Partakes ‘recording evidence’

Legal implication of the term ‘hearing’ is clear from Rule 2 (1) of Order XVIII (Hearing of the suit and examination of witnesses) of the CPC – that is, hearing partakes ‘recording evidence’. Rule 2 (1) reads as under:

“2. Statement and production of evidence – (1) On the day fixed for the hearing of the suit or on any other day to which the hearing is adjourned, the party having the right to begin shall state his case and produce his evidence in support of the issues which he is bound to prove.”

Admissions at hearing

Admissions at ‘hearing’ (by the advocate) may be made at the evidence-stage (while the witnesses are examined) and at the time of ‘final hearing’. Admissions of advocate are to be deciphered from Order-sheet or Judgment.

Once no Objection to Mode of Proof, Right to Objection Stands Waived

From the above it is clear that it would not be legitimate for the court to refrain from exhibiting a relevant document which could be received in evidence on the (express or implied) concession or admission of the opposite side (as regards mode of proof), in the scheme of Evidence Act.

Our Procedure Codes (CPC, CrPC) also declare this principle.

Copy Marked, Without Objection, Right to Objection Stands Waived

“Admission”is a mode of proof, inasmuch as ‘facts admitted need not be proved’ (Sec. 58, Evidence Act). Once a document is marked as no objection to the mode of proof on account of lack of original, then the right to raise objection (on this score) stands waived. See:

Lachhmi Narain Singh v. Sarjug Singh, AIR 2021 SC 3873;
Sumita @ Lamta v. Devki, (Valmiki J. Mehta, J.), 25 Sep 2017 (indiakanoon);
Sonu @ Amar v. State of Haryana, AIR 2017 SC 3441; 2017-8 SCC 570
Dayamathi Bai v. KM Shaffi, (2004) 7 SCC 107;
R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P. Temple and Another, (2003) 8 SCC 752;
Rafia Sultan Widow of Mirza Sultan Ali Baig v. Oil And Natural Gas Commission (I.C. Bhatt, S.B. Majmudar, JJ.), 1986 GujLH 27; 1985-2 GujLR 1315
Sk. Farid Hussinsab v. State of Maharashtra, 1983 CrLJ 487.

Admissions are Substantive Evidence By Themselves

In Bharat Singh v. Bhagirathi, AIR 1966 SC 405: [1966] 1 SCR 606, it was observed as under:

“Admissions are substantive evidence by themselves, in view of ss. 17 and 21 of the Indian Evidence Act, though they are not conclusive proof of the matters admitted. We are of opinion that the admissions duly proved are admissible evidence irrespective of whether the party making them appeared in the witness box or not and whether that party when appeared as witness was confronted with those statements in case it made a statement contrary to those admissions. The purpose of contradicting the witness under s. 145 of the Evidence Act is very much different from the purpose of proving the admission. Admission is substantive evidence of the fact admitted while a previous statement used to contradict a witness does not become substantive evidence and merely serves the purpose of throwing doubt on the veracity of the witness. What weight is to be attached to an admission made by a party is a matter different from its use as admissible evidence.”

Bharat Singh v. Bhagirathi is Quoted/referred to in:

Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2019 SC 3363; 2019-16 SCC 547.
Union of India v. Moksh Builders And Financiers Ltd., 1977 AIR SC 409; 1977-1 SCC 60.
Bishwanath Prasad v. Dwarka Prasad AIR 1974 SC 117, 1974-1 SCC 78,
Sita Ram Bhau Patil v. Ramchandra Nago Patil, (1977) 2 SCC 49,
Priya Bala Ghosh v. Suresh Chandra Ghosh, AIR 1971 SC 1153; 1971-1 SCC 864.

In Murlidhar Bapuji Valve v Yallappa Lalu Chougule, AIR 1994 Bom 358 (an often quoted decision), it was held that it was well settled law that an “admission” of a party (in a sale deed) was liable to be considered as substantive evidence even if the party made the admission was not confronted with the statement.

Judicial Admissions and Admissions in Pleadings

In Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Iccharam, AIR 1974 SC 471, it was held by the Supreme Court as under:

“26. Admissions if true and clear are by far the best proof of the facts admitted. Admissions in pleadings or judicial admissions admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admission. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand evidentiary admissions which are receivable at the rival as evidence are by themselves not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.” (Quoted in: Sangramsinh P. Gaekwad v. Shantadevi P. Gaekwad: AIR 2005 SC 809, 2005 (11) SCC 314.)

See also:

Lachhmi Narain Singh v. Sarjug Singh, AIR 2021 SC 3873;
Sumita @ Lamta v. Devki, (Valmiki J. Mehta, J.), 25 Sep 2017 (indiakanoon);
Oriental Insurance Co v. Premlata: (2007) 8 SCC 575,
Thimmappa Rai v. Ramanna Rai,(2007) 14 SCC 63.
Dayamathi Bai v. KM Shaffi, (2004) 7 SCC 107, AIR 2004 SC 4082;
R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P. Temple, (2003) 8 SCC 752;
Narbada Devi v. Birendra Kumar: (2003) 8 SCC 745

When a document is marked without objection, our courts take two (divergent) views:

First, both Contents and ‘Truth of its Contents’ stand proved.
Second, contents alone stand proved; and, not ‘Truth’ of its Contents.

Effect of marking document without objection is laid down in the following two recent decisions of the Supreme Court. In both these cases, it is seen, the Apex Court has taken the view that the ‘truth’ is also stood proved.

Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of N. C. T. of Delhi), 2023 4 SCC 731

The Constitution Bench (B. V. Nagarathna, V. Ramasubramanian, A. S. Bopanna, B. R. Gavai, S. Abdul Nazeer, JJ.) of our Apex Court laid down in Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of N. C. T. of Delhi), AIR 2023 SC 330; 2023 4 SCC 731, as under:

Section 61 deals with proof of contents of documents which is by either primary or by secondary evidence.
When a document is produced as primary evidence, it will have to be proved in the manner laid down in Sections 67 to 73 of the Evidence Act.
Mere production and marking of a document as an exhibit by the court cannot be held to be due proof of its contents. Its execution has to be proved by admissible evidence. On the other hand, when a document is produced and admitted by the opposite party and is marked as an exhibit by the court, … (sic – no objection can be raised at any later stage with regard to proof of its contents).
The contents of the document must be proved either by the production of the original document i.e., primary evidence or by copies of the same as per Section 65 as secondary evidence.
So long as an original document is in existence and is available, its contents must be proved by primary evidence.
It is only when the primary evidence is lost, in the interest of justice, the secondary evidence must be allowed.
Primary evidence is the best evidence and it affords the greatest certainty of the fact in question.
Thus, when a particular fact is to be established by production of documentary evidence, there is no scope for leading oral evidence.
What is to be produced is the primary evidence i.e., document itself. It is only when the absence of the primary source has been satisfactorily explained that secondary evidence is permissible to prove the contents of documents.
Secondary evidence, therefore, should not be accepted without a sufficient reason being given for non-production of the original.
Once a document is admitted, the contents of that document are also admitted in evidence, though those contents may not be conclusive evidence.
Moreover, once certain evidence is conclusive it shuts out any other evidence which would detract from the conclusiveness of that evidence.
There is a prohibition for any other evidence to be led which may detract from the conclusiveness of that evidence and the court has no option to hold the existence of the fact otherwise when such evidence is made conclusive.

It is held further as under:

“44. Section 64 of the Evidence Act states that documents must be proved by primary evidence except in certain cases mentioned above. ….. Thus, once a document has been properly admitted, the contents of the documents would stand admitted in evidence, and if no objection has been raised with regard to its mode of proof at the stage of tendering in evidence of such a document, no such objection could be allowed to be raised at any later stage of the case or in appeal vide Amarjit Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) 1995 Cr LJ 1623 (Del) (“Amarjit Singh”). But the documents can be impeached in any other manner, though the admissibility cannot be challenged subsequently when the document is bound in evidence.”

Objection as to non examination of the author is too late in the day

In PC Thomas v. PM Ismail (R.M. Lodha, D.K. Jain, JJ.), AIR 2010 SC 905; 2009-10 SCC 239, it is observed that the objection as to non examination of the author is too late in the day . It is held as under:

“No objection on pleas of “inadmissibility” or “mode of proof” was raised at the time of their exhibition or any time later during trial, when most of the witnesses, produced by the parties were confronted with these, as duly exhibited, bearing stamp marking with particulars, prescribed under Order XIII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and duly signed as such.
In our opinion, it is too late in the day now to object to their exhibition on the ground of “prescribed procedure” i.e. mode of proof.
Moreover, we also find that it was nobody’s case that the said documents were got printed by John K or distributed amongst voters by him. Absence of proof of acknowledgment by him because of non production of John K as a witness, in the circumstances, in our view, is inconsequential.
Admittedly, John K was a well known leader of high stature, recognized as such by Christian/Catholic voters including those mentioned in Para 17 (supra) and, therefore, there is no question of drawing an adverse inference against the election petitioner for not examining him, as strenuously urged on behalf of the appellant, particularly when the printing and circulation of offending material (Exts.P1 and P2) has been proved by the election petitioner beyond reasonable doubt.”

(b) Document marked without objection – Contents (‘TRUTH also) proved

Objection as to Truth of Contents, First Time In Appeal – Effect – Too late in the day

In Rafia Sultan v. Oil And Natural Gas Commission (I.C. Bhatt, S.B. Majmudar, JJ.), 1986 ACJ 616; 1986 Guj LH 27; 1985-2 GujLR 1315 it is observed as under:

“It was never the case of the Commission that report which was submitted in a sealed cover was not the genuine and true report of the committee appointed by the Commission itself. Thus in short no objection about the truth of contents of Ex. 24/1 i. e. Ex. 32 was ever put forward before the trial Court and rightly so as that was the report of its own committee of experts appointed by the Commission for enlightening itself about the causes of the accident and about the future safety steps which were required to be taken to avoid such accidents. … Not only that but the witness of the defendant accepted the contents of the said document Ex. 32. Nothing was suggested by him or even whispered to the effect that the contents of the said report were in any way untrue. …. In fact both the sides have relied upon different parts of Ex. 32 in support of their rival contentions on the aspect of negligence and contributory negligence. It is therefore too late in the day for Miss Shah for the Commission to canvass for the first time before us in appeal that contents of Ex. 32 were not proved in accordance with law and hence the document was required to be taken off the record. It is now well settled that objection about mode of proof can be waived by a party and that such objection is raised by the party at the earliest opportunity in the trial Court such objection will be deemed to have been waived and cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time in appeal (vide P. C. Purushottamman v. S. Perumal AIR 1972 SC 608; Pandappa v. Shivlingappa 47 BLR. 962; and Gopaldas and another v. Shri Thakurli, AIR 1943 PC 83 at page 87 ). In view of this settled legal position the objection raised by Miss Shah against admissibility of Ex. 32 viz. that its contents were not proved in accordance with law has to be repelled.”

When a document is marked without objection, no doubt, the presumption in Sec. 114 of the Evidence Act is wide enough to presume that (i) the “contents” of the document and (ii) its ‘truth’ stand ‘proved’. Therefore, it is the duty of the other side to express its disapproval – that it does not accept the ‘contents’ and/or ‘truth’ (if it is so).

The dissent thereof can be placed by the opposite side by-

Raising ‘objection’ at the time of its marking, or
Placing the protest by way of ‘suggestion’ to the witness or by proper questions.

(c) TRUTH is left to Discretion (Sec. 3) & Presumption (Sec. 114) of Court

Sec. 67, Evidence Act lays down the fundamental principles as to the proof of documents. Sec. 67 reads as under:

“67. Proof of signature and handwriting of person alleged to have signed or written document produced—If a document is alleged to be signed or to have been written wholly or in part by any person, the signature or the handwriting of so much of the document as is alleged to be in that person’s handwriting must be proved to be in his handwriting.”

Sec. 67 says as to ‘proof of signature and handwriting’ alone. Neither Sec. 67 nor any other section of the Evidence Act says about ‘proof as to truth‘ of contents of documents.

Inferences as to “TRUTH” of contents

Evidence Act does not expressly proffer anything as to “TRUTH of contents” of documents.
It is left to the discretion (Sec. 3) of the court. In proper cases court can presume (Sec. 114) truth.
In most cases, ‘proof of execution’ leads the court to presume ‘proof of truth’.
It is more so, when a document is admitted (by the other side) without objection.
But, when proof as to ‘truth’ is in issue, or in dispute, the party in whom the burden thereof rests has to discharge it.

(d) Legal Position on ‘Waiver’ of Mode of Proof, Reprised

It appears that the legal position can be reprised as under –

If a document is marked without objection, the right of objection (vest with the other side) stands waived. And the entire contents of the document would be admissible in evidence.
However, if (i) there is any intrinsic infirmity to the document, or (ii) specific proof as to truth is required in the nature of the case of the parties, or it is marked through a witness who is incompetent to prove it (and the opposite party does not expressly or impliedly accepted it), the court can say – it is not ready to act upon it, for truth or correctness of contents is not established.

In Dibakar Behera v. Padmabati Behera, AIR 2008 Ori 92, it is pointed out that (in such a situation) there must be “some evidence” to support the contents of such document.

The following decisions also lay down the proposition that ‘mere marking of a document’ as an ‘exhibit’ may amount to proof of contents, but not its ‘truth’.

Rakesh Mohindra v. Anita Beri, 2015 AIR(SCW) 6271.
Kaliya v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2013-10 SCC 758;
Sait Khimchand v. Yelamarti Satyam, AIR 1971 SC 1865;
Nandkishore Lalbhai Mehta v. New Era Fabrics, AIR 2015 SC 3796 (“Mere identifying the signature of Mr. Pathak (by a witness) does not prove the contents of the said letter which is being relied upon by the appellant.”)

It is apposite to note – in RVE Venkatachala Gounder v. Arumlmigu Viswesaraswami, AIR 2003 SC 4548, the question as to ‘truth’ of contents did not specifically come for consideration. It is dealt with as under:

“Since documents A30 and A34 were admitted in evidence without any objection, the High Court erred in holding that these documents were inadmissible being photo copies, the originals of which were not produced.”

Standard of Proof in Civil Cases – Preponderance of Probability

It is noteworthy that the standard of proof required in civil cases is different from that of criminal cases; since, civil court proceeds on a preponderance of probability, whereas criminal court insists ‘proof beyond reasonable doubt’. In Miller v. Minister of Pensions, (1947)2 All ER 372, Lord Denning, described preponderance of probability as “more probable than not”. It is said in picturesque as ‘likelihood of 51%’.

2. MERE MARKING, DOES NOT PROVE THE CONTENTS – NOT AN UNQUALIFIED PROPOSITION

This Proposition is Not to be Applied “Literatim”

It is disgraceful that several courts in India apply this proposition (Mere Marking Does Not Prove the Contents) ineptly.

This proposition is not attracted–

when a document is marked on ‘admission’ by the opposite side.

This proposition is attracted–

when it is evident that the document is marked only for ‘identification‘, or
when the objection raised by the other side is sustained and the document is marked ‘subject to proof/objection’.
when the document is marked through an incompetent witness and not proved through a competent witness (in spite of the objection in this regard), afterwards;
when it has come out in cross examination of the witness through whom it is marked (by other evidence) that it is not proved ‘in accordance with law‘.

Each Case under this Head Requires Distinct Consideration

As this proposition (Mere Marking Does Not Prove the Contents) is not to be applied “literatim”, each case (which referred to this proposition) requires distinct consideration. (Some of these decisions mentioned this proposition, merely to show that such an argument was placed before it; but those decisions were quoted (subsequently) by some Courts as if those earlier decisions laid down a ‘ratio decidendi’.)

Read blog: Ratio Decidendi (alone) Forms a Precedent; Not the Final Order or Conclusion

Following are the often-cited cases on this subject.

The Proposition -Mere Marking Does Not Prove the Contents – was NOT applied in the following decisions.

Decision	Did the Documents Mark without Proper Proof was accepted in evidence?	Reason for NOT Appling the Proposition Mere Marking Does Not Prove the Contents
Narbada Devi Gupta v. Birendra Kumar Jaiswal, 2003-8 SCC 745	Yes. The rent receipts* were received in evidence. (without formal proof)*	The rent receipts were ‘not disputed’* by the other side.*
Kaliya v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2013-10 SCC 758	Yes. The secondary evidence* of dying declaration produced in this case was accepted by the Court.*	Secondary evidence was adduced with foundational evidence (for producing copy; not original)

The Proposition -Mere Marking Does Not Prove the Contents – was applied in the following decisions; but, not unreservedly.

Decision	Did the proposition – Mere Marking Does Not Prove the Contents – unreservedly apply?	Reason for NOT applying the Proposition Mere Marking Does Not Prove Contents, unreservedly
Ramji Dayawala v. Invest Import: AIR 1981 SC 2085	No. Truth of contents of a letter and two telegrams were not taken. (though marked)	Truth of the facts in the document was “in issue“
M. Chandra v. M. Thangamuthu, 2010-9 SCC 712	No. Validity and Genuineness of the Photocopy (of the Caste Certificate) was not* accepted (though marked)*	Validity and Genuineness of the Caste Certificate was very much in question
H. Siddiqui v. A. Ramalingam, (2011) 4 SCC 240	No. *Contents* of the *Photocopy* was not* received as proof (though marked)*	*Photocopy* was shown to the witness during cross-examination alone, and Signature alone was admitted by the witness.
Tarajee Khimchand v. Yelamarti Satyam, AIR 1971 SC 1865	No. Accounts of the Plaintiff was not received as proof (though marked)	The accounts of the Plaintiff would not be proved by itself

(a) Narbada Devi Gupta v. Birendra Kumar Jaiswal, 2003-8 SCC 745

[The proposition (Mere Marking Does Not Prove the Contents) was neither attracted nor applied in this case, for – the rent receipts were taken as proved, for, it was ‘not disputed’ by the other side.]

It is held in Narbada Devi Gupta v. Birendra Kumar Jaiswal, 2003-8 SCC 745 as under:

“Reliance is heavily placed on behalf of the appellant on Ramji Dayawala v. Invest Import: AIR 1981 SC 2085. The legal position is not in dispute that mere production and marking of a document as exhibit by the court cannot be held to be a due proof of its contents. Its execution has to be proved by admissible evidence, that is, by the evidence of those persons who can vouchsafe for the truth of the facts in issue”.

Narbada Devi Gupta v. Birendra Kumar Jaiswal (supra) continued as under:

“The plaintiff did not dispute his signatures on the back of them. There was, therefore, no further burden of proof on the defendant to lead additional evidence in proof of the writing on the rent receipts and its due execution by the deceased landlady.”

Note:

In this case the rent receipts were taken as proved, for, it was ‘not disputed’._{[Hence the ‘legal position’ stated in Ramji Dayawala v. Invest Import (that mere production and marking of a document cannot be held to be a due proof) was not attracted in this case.]}

(b) Kaliya v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2013-10 SCC 758

[The proposition (Mere Marking Does Not Prove the Contents) neither attracted nor applied in this case, for – the secondary evidence of dying declaration produced in this case (with foundational evidence) was accepted by the Court]

In this case the Courts upheld the acceptance of the secondary evidence (of the dying declaration). Our Apex Court held as under-

“In the instant case, the Trial Court had granted permission to lead secondary evidence and the same had been adduced strictly in accordance with law and accepted by the courts below.”

It is only pointed out in this decision as under:

“However, the secondary evidence of an ordinary document is admissible only and only when the party desirous of admitting it has proved before the court that it was not in his possession or control of it and further, that he has done what could be done to procure the production of it. Thus, the party has to account for the non-production in one of the ways indicated in the section. The party further has to lay down the factual foundation to establish the right to give secondary evidence where the original document cannot be produced. When the party gives in evidence a certified copy/secondary evidence without proving the circumstances entitling him to give secondary evidence, the opposite party must raise an objection at the time of admission. In case, an objection is not raised at that point of time, it is precluded from being raised at a belated stage.Further,mere admission of a document in evidence does not amount to its proof. Nor, mere marking of exhibit on a document does not dispense with the proof , which is otherwise required to be done in accordance with law.
- (Vide: The Roman Catholic Mission v. The State, AIR 1966 SC 1457;
- Marwari Khumhar v. Bhagwanpuri Guru Ganeshpuri, AIR 2000 SC 2629;
- RVE Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu, AIR 2003 SC 4548;
- Smt. Dayamathi Bai v. K.M. Shaffi, AIR 2004 SC 4082; and
- LIC of India v. Rampal Singh Bisen,2010-4 SCC 491).”

(c) Ramji Dayawala v. Invest Import: AIR 1981 SC 2085

[The proposition (Mere Marking Does Not Prove the Contents) was applied in this case, for – Truth of the facts in the document was “in issue“]

It is held as under:

“Obviously, in these circumstances the Privy Council observed that the fact that a letter and two telegrams were sent by itself would not prove the truth of the contents of the letter and, therefore, the contents of the letter bearing on the question of lack of testamentary capacity would not be substantive evidence. Undoubtedly, mere proof of the handwriting of a document would not tantamount to proof of all the contents or the facts stated in the document. If the truth of the facts stated in a document is in issue mere proof of the handwriting and execution of the document would not furnish evidence of the truth of the facts or contents of the document. The truth or otherwise of the facts or contents so stated would have to be proved by admissible evidence, i.e. by the evidence of those persons who can vouch safe for the truth of the facts in issue.”
_{Note: The aforequoted portion itself will show that the proposition – mere proof of the handwriting would not tantamount to proof of contents – is not absolute. It is attracted to this case, because the truth of the facts was “in issue“.}

(d)M. Chandra v. M. Thangamuthu, 2010-9 SCC 712

[The proposition (Mere Marking Does Not Prove the Contents) was attracted in this case, for – the Validity and Genuineness of the Photocopy (of the Caste Certificate) was very much in question]

In this decision it was held:

“The High Court while considering this issue has noticed that the appellant failed to produce the original certificate issued by Arya Samaj, Madurai and further has not examined Santnakumar, who was supposed to have received and retained the original certificate issued by the Arya Samaj and the original records have not been summoned from Arya Samaj and no steps have been taken to summon the responsible person from Arya Samaj to prove that the appellant underwent conversion. Therefore, the claim made by her about her reconversion cannot be accepted. We do not agree with the reasoning of the High Court. It is true that a party who wishes to rely upon the contents of a document must adduce primary evidence of the contents, and only in the exceptional cases will secondary evidence be admissible. However, if secondary evidence is admissible, it may be adduced in any form in which it may be available, whether by production of a copy, duplicate copy of a copy, by oral evidence of the contents or in another form. The secondary evidence must be authenticated by foundational evidence that the alleged copy is in fact a true copy of the original.”
_{Note: It was an appeal from an Election petition and the Supreme Court allowed the appeal. The validity and genuineness of the Certificate was very much in question. Therefore, the principles in RVE Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu, AIR 2003 SC 4548 (where the secondary evidence was marked without objection), was not attracted to this case (and it was not referred to also).}
Principle of law laid down in M. Chandra v. M. Thangamuthu is followed in Rakesh Mohindra v. Anita Beri, 2016 -16 SCC 483.

(e) H. Siddiqui v. A. Ramalingam, (2011) 4 SCC 240

[The proposition (Mere Marking Does Not Prove the Contents) was applied in this case, for – the Photocopy was shown to the witness during cross-examination alone, and Signature alone was admitted by the witness.]

It was held that the power of attorney was not proved in accordance with the terms of Sec. 65 of the Evidence Act, for the following –

The power of attorney had not been proved.
Original had never been filed before the Trial Court.
Only a photocopy of the same was shown to the respondent during cross-examination.
The respondent has only admitted his signature thereon.
He had never admitted its contents or genuineness.

It is held in H. Siddiqui v. A. Ramalingam, 2011-4 SCC 240, as under:

“In our humble opinion, the Trial Court could not proceed in such an unwarranted manner for the reason that the respondent had merely admitted his signature on the photocopy of the power of attorney and did not admit the contents thereof.”

It is added:

“More so, the court should have borne in mind that admissibility of a document or contents thereof may not necessary lead to drawing any inference unless the contents thereof have some probative value.”

(f) Tarajee Khimchand v. Yelamarti Satyam, AIR 1971 SC 1865.

[The proposition (Mere Marking Does Not Prove the Contents) was applied in this case, for – the accounts of the Plaintiff would not be proved by itself]

It is held that the documents do not prove themselves. It is also observed in this decision as under:

“15. The plaintiffs wanted to rely on Exs. A-12 and A-13, the day book and the ledger respectively. The plaintiffs did not prove these books. There is no reference to these books in the judgments. The mere marking of an exhibit does not dispense with the proof of documents. It is common place to say that the negative cannot be proved. The proof of the plaintiffs’ books of account became important because the plaintiffs’ accounts were impeached and falsified by the defendants’ case of larger payments than those admitted by the plaintiffs. The irresistible inference arises that the plaintiffs’ books would not have supported the plaintiffs.” (Quoted in: Vinod Jaswantray Vyas v. State of Gujarat, 2024-7 SCR 365.)

Other Important Decisions –

1. LIC v. Ram Pal Singh Bisen: 2010-4 SCC 491 (Filing of the Inquiry Report or the evidence adduced during the domestic enquiry);
2. Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohith: 1988 (Supp) SCC 604 (document on date of birth).
3. Nandkishore Lalbhai Mehta v. New Era Fabrics, AIR 2015 SC 3796 (It is observed that mere marking as exhibit and identification of executant’s signature by one of witnesses does not prove contents of a document).
4. Vinod Jaswantray Vyas v. State of Gujarat, 2024-7 SCR 365 (mere marking of exhibit – letter – without the expert deposing about the opinion given therein would not dispense with the proof of contents).

3. IF ‘TRUTH’ IS IN ISSUE – Mere Marking Not Amount to ‘Waiver’

The fundamental principles as to proof of execution a document is that the execution has to be proved by proper evidence, that is by the ‘evidence of those persons who can vouchsafe for the truth of the facts in issue’ (Narbada Devi Gupta v. Birendra Kumar Jaiswal, 2003-8 SCC 745). But, in the facts and circumstances of each case, the court is at liberty to invoke its wisdom and fill certain gaps in evidence by applying ‘presumption’.

It is legitimate to say that this requirement as to proof of ‘truth’ is independent from inviting ‘proof of signature and handwriting’ in Sec. 67 to 71 of the Evidence Act. This proposition is clear from Sec. 67, which lays down the fundamental principles as to the proof of documents. Sec. 67 reads as under:

“67. Proof of signature and handwriting of person alleged to have signed or written document produced—If a document is alleged to be signed or to have been written wholly or in part by any person, the signature or the handwriting of so much of the document as is alleged to be in that person’s handwriting must be proved to be in his handwriting.”

Though proof of execution (dealt with in Sec. 67 to 71) is independent from proof as to ‘truth’ of contents of a document, proof as to ‘truth’ can be presumed by the court, in most cases, on ‘proof of execution’. It is more so, when a document is admitted without objection. Proof as to ‘truth’ is essential if ‘truth’ is in issue, or in dispute.

If ‘TRUTH’ is in issue, or in dispute, marking a document without objection, or mere proof of handwriting or execution,by itself, need not absolve the duty to prove the truth as to the contents of the documents. (Ramji Dayawala v. Invest Import, AIR 1981 SC 2085; Achuthan Pillai v. Marikar (Motors) Ltd., AIR 1983 Ker 81; Suresh v. Tobin, 2013-1 KerLT 293). Court has a duty to see that the statement of a witness gets independent corroboration, direct or circumstantial, in proper cases (Ahalya Bariha v. Chhelia Padhan, 1992 Cri.LJ 493).

In Ramji Dayawala v. Invest Import: AIR 1981 SC 2085, it us held as under:

“If the truth of the facts stated in a document is in issue mere proof of the handwriting and execution of the document would not furnish evidence of the truth of the facts or contents of the document. The truth or otherwise of the facts or contents so stated would have to be proved by admissible evidence, i.e. by the evidence of those persons who can vouchsafe for the truth of the facts in issue.”

4. Admission of Contents – May Dispense with Proof; But Probative Value may be Less or Nil

The discretion vested with the court to take presumption; and to evaluate probative value.

It is well settled that when a party leads secondary evidence, the Court is obliged to examine the probative value of the document and its contents, and to decide the question of admissibility of the same [Rakesh Mohindra v. Anita Beri: 2015 AIR(SCW) 6271; Kaliya v. State of MP, 2013-10 SCC 758 ].

Even when a document is technically admitted in court, the probative value thereof will always be a matter for the court to determine. That is, it is depended upon the nature of each case.

The probative value of Scene-Mahazar, Postmortem Report, Photocopy of a Registered Deed etc. without supporting legal evidence may be lesser. In such cases the court can refrain from acting upon such documents until regular evidence is tendered.

In Kaliya v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2013-10 SCC 758, it is held as under:

“The court is obliged to examine the probative value of documents produced in court or their contents and decide the question of admissibility of a document in secondary evidence.”
[Note: Further held: “In case, an objection is not raised at that point of time, it is precluded from being raised at a belated stage.”]

In Kaliya v. State of MP: 2013-10 SCC 758 our Apex Court also referred to H. Siddiqui v. A. Ramalingam, AIR 2011 SC 1492, and Rasiklal Manikchand v. MSS Food Products: 2012-2 SCC 196.

In Rakesh Mohindra v. Anita Beri, 2015 AIR (SCW) 6271, as regards mere admittance of secondary evidence, it is held:

“Mere admission of secondary evidence, does not amount to its proof. The genuineness, correctness and existence of the document shall have to be established during the trial and the trial court shall record the reasons before relying on those secondary evidences.”

In Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Ram Pal Singh Bisen [2010-4 SCC 491], it is observed as under:

“26. We are of the firm opinion that mere admission of document in evidence does amount to its proof. In other words, mere marking of exhibit on a document does dispense with its proof, which is required to be done in accordance with law. …..
27. It was the duty of the appellants to have proved documents Exh.-A-1 to Exh. A-10 in accordance with law. Filing of the Inquiry Report or the evidence adduced during the domestic enquiry would partake the character of admissible evidence in Court of law. That documentary evidence was also required to be proved by the appellants in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act, which they have failed to do.”

The Calcutta High Court quoting Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Ram Pal Singh Bisen [2010-4 SCC 491] it is observed in Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company v.Smt. Santa (2019-2 ACC 36) that ‘even if the document had been marked as Exhibit-A without objection, without a formal proof thereof in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act, such document lost its credibility and is of no probative value’.

5. Court should allow to adduce proper evidence to prove documents

Besides the powers of the court under Sec. 165 of Evidence Act, the scheme of the Procedural Acts shows that the court has jurisdiction to require the party concerned to prove that document. It is evident from –

              • Sec. 58 of Evidence Act
              • O. XII, r. 2A Proviso, CPC and
              • Sec. 294 of the CrPC

Inasmuch as –

(a) mere marking of a document on admission will not amount to proof, or evidence of the contents of the document or its truth;
(b) the probative value of a document ‘marked without objection’ may be low or nil, for want of proper proof; and
(c) there may be a formal defect to the document for it is a secondary evidence and it is produced without adducing ‘foundational evidence’,

it is legitimate to say that before taking an adverse stance as to proof in these counts, the court should give an opportunity to the party who relies on the document to cure the deficiency.

Read connected Blogs:

How to Subscribe ‘IndianLawLive’? Click here – “How to Subscribe free “

Read in this cluster (Click on the topic):

Civil Suits: Procedure & Principles

Book No, 1 – Civil Procedure Code

Principles and Procedure

PROPERTY LAW

Title, ownership and Possession

Adverse Possession

Land Laws/ Transfer of Property Act

Power of attorney

Evidence Act – General

Sec. 65B

Admission, Relevancy and Proof

Law on Documents

Documents – Proof and Presumption

Interpretation

Contract Act

Law on Damages

Easement

Stamp Act & Registration

Divorce/Marriage

Negotiable Instruments Act

Arbitration

Will

Book No. 2: A Handbook on Constitutional Issues

Religious issues

Book No. 3: Common Law of CLUBS and SOCIETIES in India

Book No. 4: Common Law of TRUSTS in India

General Principles
Dedication and Vesting
Trustees and Management
Breach of Trust
- Breach of Trust and Removal of Trustees
Suits by or against Trusts
Law on Hindu Religious Endowments
Temples, Gurudwaras, Churches and Mosques – General
- Legal Personality of Temples, Gurudwaras, Churches and Mosques
Constitutional Principles
Ayodhya and Sabarimala Disputes
General

First view Proof (Contents) stands established. It cannot be questioned afterwards. Truth also: See: Rafia Sultan v. Oil And Natural Gas Commission (I.C. Bhatt, S.B. Majmudar, JJ.), 1985-2 GujLR 1315, 1986 ACJ 616; 1985-2 GujLR 1315.	RVE Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami: AIR 2003 SC 4548. Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of Delhi) [2023] 4 SCC 731 [If no objection as to mode of proof (secondary evidence) when marked, no such objection could be allowed to be raised at any later stage.]
Second View Even if no objection, it does not dispense with proof (as to, both, existence of the document and its truth). In such a case the document will not be taken as proved. (Note: It may not be legitimate to apply this principle literatim)	LIC v. Ram Pal Singh Bisen: 2010-4 SCC 491 (Domestic enquiry report); H. Siddiqui v. A. Ramalingam, (2011) 4 SCC 240 (Copy of a power of attorney alone was shown to the respondent during cross-examination and he admitted his signature thereon only, and not its contents); Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohith: 1988 (Supp) SCC 604 (date of birth).
Third view If truth is in issue, mere proof of contents, or marking without objection, is not proof of truth.	See: Narbada Devi Gupta v. Birendra Kumar Jaiswal, 2003-8 SCC 745; Ramji Dayawala Vs. Invest Import: AIR 1981 SC 2085.
Fourth view Admission of contents, and dispenses with proof and truth; but its probative value will be a matter for appreciation by court.	See: State of Bihar v. Radha Krishna Singh, AIR 1983 SC 684 (Admission and probative value – different); Rakesh Mohindra v. Anita Beri: 2015 AIR(SCW) 6271; *Kaliya v. State of MP*: 2013-10 SCC 758; H. Siddiqui v. A. Ramalingam: AIR 2011 SC 1492; Rasiklal Manikchand v. MSS Food Products: 2012-2 SCC 196.
Fifth view Admission of contents, and dispenses with proof and truth; but Court should require (in proper cases) the party producing the document to adduce proper evidence, and to cure formal defects, invoking – • Sec. 165 of Evidence Act • Sec. 58 of Evidence Act • O. XII, r. 2A Proviso, CPC and • Sec. 294 of the CrPC.	See: Harkirat Singh v. Amrinder Singh, (2005) 13 SCC 511; Umesh Challiyil v. K.P. Rajendra, (2008) 11 SCC 740; KK Ramachandran Master v. MV Sreyamakumar, (2010) 7 SCC 428; AIR 2015 SC 3796.

Is TRUTH OF CONTENTS (also) Established when a Document is MARKED WITHOUT OBJECTION?

Published by sajikoduvath

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Share this:

Related

Published by sajikoduvath

Leave a Comment Cancel reply