Author Archives: sajikoduvath

Saji Koduvath, Advocate, Kottayam.

Points Decided in Channappa v.  Parvatewwa, 2026 INSC 343

1. Adverse IA Orders can be challenged in Appeal from Decree: Once an Order is passed in an Interlocutory Application in a suit, it stands as res judicata at its subsequent stages, including the appeal, revision, etc.

• However, adverse IA Orders (including Order II Rule 2, CPC petition) can be challenged in an appeal from the (final) decree. Section 105 Code of Civil Procedure provides – when an appeal is filed against the decree, any error, defect or irregularity in an Order can be raised as a ground in the memorandum of appeal.

2. Order II Rule 2, CPC: A subsequent suit claiming a relief that ought to have been claimed in an earlier suit, on the same cause of action, is barred under Order II Rule 2 of the CPC.

3. Constructive Res Judicata: The second suit may also be barred by constructive res judicata.

• Explanation IV to Section 11 CPC provides that any matter which might and ought to have been made ground of defence or attack in such former suit shall be deemed to have been a matter directly and substantially in issue in such suit.

Principle (Ratio Decidendi) Laid Down in Channappa v. Parvatewwa

If two suits are filed by the same plaintiff against the same defendant, the relief of declaration of title, and consequential relief of possession cannot be claimed in the subsequent suit in the following circumstances:

• in the earlier suit, the plaintiff pleaded that the defendant was asserting title over the suit property;
• in the earlier suit, the relief of declaration of title with consequential possession was available; and
• in the earlier suit, these reliefs were not claimed.

Facts of the First  Suit

• Parvatewwa adopted Channappa in 1961.
• The defendant told the plaintiff that he is the absolute owner of the properties.
• In 2002, Parvatewwa filed a suit for a declaration that the 1961 adoption deed was null and void, and for an injunction.
• [No consequential declaration of title on property sought for.]
• The suit was dismissed.
• Parvatewwa filed appeal in 2006.
• The First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal.
• It confirmed the judgment on the ground of limitation, though the finding on the validity of the adoption deed was reversed.
• The Regular Second Appeal of Parvatewwa was allowed and the cross-objections were dismissed.

Facts of the Second Suit

• During the pendency of the appeal Parvatewwa instituted a second suit in 2007.
• In that suit she alleged that Channappa had illegally dispossessed her; and sought declaration of her ownership and recovery.
• The suit was dismissed by the Trial Court holding that it was barred by limitation and hit by the principles of res judicata, constructive res judicata and Order II Rule 2, CPC.
• The First Appellate Court held that the suit was not barred by limitation.
• However, it confirmed the dismissal of the suit on the grounds of res judicata, constructive res judicata and under Order II Rule 2 of CPC.
• The High Court allowed the Regular Second Appeal. The Suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff.

The Issues Considered

The issues considered in this case were the following –

• 1. Whether the principles of res judicata apply where an interlocutory application (raising a plea of bar under Order II Rule 2 CPC) has been dismissed?
• 2. Whether the second suit is barred under the provisions of Order II Rule 2 CPC?
• 3. Whether the second suit is barred by the principles of Constructive res judicata?

SC Findings – on IA Filed under Order II Rule 2 CPC

An Interlocutory Application was filed by the defendant under Order II Rule 2, CPC. He prayed that the suit was liable to be dismissed for (i) the causes of action in both suits were the same, and (ii) the plaintiff omitted, in the first suit, to sue for the relief of declaration of title (sought for in the second suit).

The maintainability petition under Order II Rule 2, CPC, was dismissed by the trial court. It held that the causes of action in both suits were different. Revision against the same (before the High Court) was also dismissed.  After the trial, the trial court dismissed the second suit. The First Appellate Court confirmed the dismissal. But, the High Court allowed the Second Appeal in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit.

 Before the Supreme Court, the defendant contended that the second suit was barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC. The plaintiff argued that the issue had attained finality in view of the revisional order passed on the Order II Rule 2 application, which had been decided in his favour. This argument was not accepted by the Supreme Court. The Apex Court pointed out the following:

• The Order in I.A. filed under Order II Rule 2, CPC, is not independently appealable. (Whether an appeal would lie or not from an Order on an IA is determined under  Section 104 read with Order 43, CPC.)
• Section 105 CPC provides that when an appeal is filed against the decree, any error, defect or irregularity in an Order (though no appeal lies from an Order) can be raised as a ground in the memorandum of appeal.

Section 105 reads as under:

• ‘105. Other orders – (1) Save as otherwise expressly provided, no appeal shall lie from any order made by a Court in the exercise of its original or appellate jurisdiction; but, where a decree is appealed from, any error, defect or irregularity in any order, affecting the decision of the case, may be set forth as a ground of objection in the memorandum of appeal.
• (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where any party aggrieved by an order of remand made after the commencement of this Code from which an appeal lies does not appeal therefrom, he shall thereafter be precluded from disputing its correctness.’

Defendants Can Urge in Appeal – The Suit is Barred Under O II r 2 CPC ; No Res judicata

In Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar AIR 1964 SC 993, it is held that this proposition is subject to Sec. 105.

After quoting Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar (supra), it is held in Channappa v.  Parvatewwa, 2026 INSC 343, it is observed – notwithstanding the earlier rejection of the application raising the plea on Order II Rule 2 CPC, it is open to the defendants to urge before the Appellate Court that the suit was barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC. Thereafter, it is held as under:

• “Therefore, the contention that the dismissal of the application would operate as a bar to re-agitate the issue is misconceived.”

It was explained by Das Gupta, J. in Satyadhan Ghosal v. Smt Deorajin Debi, (1960) 3 SCR 590, as under:

• ‘Does this, however, mean that because an earlier stage of the litigation a court had decided an interlocutory matter in one way and no appeal has been taken therefrom or no appeal did lie, a higher court cannot at a later stage of the same litigation consider the matter again? …
  • It is clear therefore that an interlocutory order
    • which had not been appealed from
    • either because no appeal lay or
    • even though an appeal lay an appeal was not taken
  • could be challenged in an appeal from the final decree or order.’ (Quoted in: Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar AIR 1964 SC 993)

SC Findings – on Order II Rule 2

The doctrine underlying Order II Rule 2, CPC, is founded upon the salutary principle that a defendant ought not to be vexed twice for the same cause of action. The plaintiff must also claim all reliefs arising from a single cause of action in one proceeding. Where a plaintiff omits to claim a relief, he is precluded from instituting a subsequent suit in respect of such omitted relief.

The Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Gurbux Singh v. Bhooralal AIR 1964 SC 1810, held as follows:

• “6. In order that a plea of a Bar under Order 2 Rule 2(3) of the Civil Procedure Code should succeed the defendant who raises the plea must make out; (i) that the second suit was in respect of the same cause of action as that on which the previous suit was based; (2) that in respect of that cause of action the plaintiff was entitled to more than one relief; (3) that being thus entitled to more than one relief the plaintiff, without leave obtained from the Court omitted to sue for the relief for which the second suit had been filed.”

Pleadings in the first suit

It was stated in the plaint –

• “The defendant told the plaintiff that he is the absolute owner of all the properties of the plaintiff mentioned above ….The plaintiff also came to know that the defendant has created document to show that he is the adopted son and the said document of adoption is registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Bijapur on 23.3.1961 itself.”

The Court pointed out – Despite being fully aware that Channappa (defendant) had denied her ownership and had asserted rights based on the family arrangement deed of 1998, Parvatewwa chose to institute Suit–I, ‘without seeking the necessary and consequential relief of declaration of title’.

The Apex Court held –

• “Once Channappa had clearly contested Parvatewwa’s ownership in the pleadings, it became incumbent upon Parvatewwa to seek the comprehensive relief of declaration of title along with the consequential relief of injunction”.

The court relied on Cuddalore Powergen Corporation Ltd. v. Chemplast Cuddalore Vinyls Limited, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 82, which clarified that the rule under Order II Rule 2, CPC is founded on the principle that a person should not be vexed twice for the same cause of action and that the object of this rule is to prevent harassment of the defendant through successive litigation.

The Apex Court finally pointed out –

• “The omission to seek such relief in Suit–I is significant and cannot be cured through a subsequent suit”.
• “27. In the present case, Parvatewwa (plaintiff) herself had pleaded in the earlier proceedings that Channappa (defendant) was asserting rights over the suit properties on the basis of the adoption. The dispute as to the parties’ respective rights over the property was, therefore, already in existence at the time of institution of Suit–I. In such circumstances, the relief of declaration of title and the consequential relief relating to possession could and ought to have been claimed in the earlier proceedings.”
• “The subsequent institution of Suit–II seeking declaration of ownership and recovery of possession in respect of the same property and between the same parties is, therefore, clearly hit by the provisions of Order II Rule 2, CPC.”

SC Findings – on Constructive res judicata

The principle of constructive res judicata is embodied in Explanation IV to Section 11. A matter which might and ought to have been made a ground of attack in the former proceedings shall be deemed to have been directly and substantially in issue in such proceedings. The Apex Court held as under:

• “Parvatewwa having omitted to seek appropriate relief in Suit–I despite being aware of Channappa’s claim, cannot be permitted to agitate the same issue by way of a subsequent suit”.

The Court quoted from the following three decisions:

(i)  Forward Construction Co. v. Prabhat Mandal,(1986) 1 SCC 100: It observed as under:

• “20. So far as the first reason is concerned, the High Court in our opinion was not right in holding that the earlier judgment would not operate as res judicata as one of the grounds taken in the present petition was conspicuous by its absence in the earlier petition.
• Explanation IV to Section 11 CPC provides that any matter which might and ought to have been made ground of defence or attack in such former suit shall be deemed to have been a matter directly and substantially in issue in such suit. An adjudication is conclusive and final not only as to the actual matter determined but as to every other matter which the parties might and ought to have litigated and have had it decided as incidental to or essentially connected with the subject-matter of the litigation and every matter coming within the legitimate purview of the original action both in respect of the matters of claim or defence. The principle underlying Explanation IV is that where the parties have had an opportunity of controverting a matter that should be taken to be the same thing as if the matter had been actually controverted and decided. It is true that where a matter has been constructively in issue it cannot be said to have been actually heard and decided. It could only be deemed to have been heard and decided. The first reason, therefore, has absolutely no force.”

(ii) Alka Gupta v. Narender Kumar Gupta, 2010 SCC OnLine SC 1085: It observed as under:

• “25. The principle underlying Explanation IV to Section 11 becomes clear from Greenhalgh v. Mallard [(1947) 2 All ER 255 (CA)] thus:
•  “… it would be accurate to say that res judicata for this purpose is not confined to the issues which the court is actually asked to decide, but that it covers issues or facts which are so clearly part of the subject-matter of the litigation and so clearly could have been raised that it would be an abuse of the process of the court to allow a new proceeding to be started in respect of them.”

(iii)  Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers’ Association v. State of Maharashtra, (1990) 2 SCC 715: It observed as under:

• “35. … an adjudication is conclusive and final not only as to the actual matter determined but as to every other matter which the parties might and ought to have litigated and have had decided as incidental to or essentially connected with subject-matter of the litigation and every matter coming into the legitimate purview of the original action both in respect of the matters of claim and defence.”

Earlier SC Decisions – O II r 2: “Cause of Action” Chosen, or ‘Forms the Foundation’

It is important to note:

• Order II Rule 2 bars – to sue for any relief omitted. Order II Rule 2 reads -“Every suit shall include the whole of the claim which the plaintiff is entitled to make in respect of the cause of action…”

Pointing out that the term “cause of action” is not defined in the CPC, it has been explained by the Apex Court, in Kandimalla Raghavaiah v. National Insurance Co., 2009-7 SCC 768: AIR 2010 SC Supp 880, as under:

• “13.The term “cause of action” is neither defined in the Act nor in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 but is of wide import. It has different meanings in different contexts, that is when used in the context of territorial jurisdiction or limitation or the accrual of right to sue. Generally, it is described as “bundle of facts”, which if proved or admitted entitle the plaintiff to the relief prayed for. Pithily stated, “cause of action” means the cause of action for which the suit is brought. “Cause of action” is cause of action which gives occasion for and forms the foundation of the suit. (See: Sidramappa Vs. Rajashetty, 1970-1 SCC 186). In the context of limitation with reference to a fire insurance policy, undoubtedly, the date of accrual of cause of action has to be the date on which the fire breaks out”.

In Mohammad Khalil Khan v. Mahbub Ali Mian, AIR 1949 PC 78, it was pointed out – what would constitute the cause of action in a suit must always depend on the particular facts of each case, and the true difficulty in each instance arises only upon the application of this rule. It is held as under:

• “As pointed out in Moonshee Bazloor Ruheem v. Shumsoonnissa Begum (11 M.I.A. 551 at p. 605) “The correct test in all cases of this kind is, whether the claim in the new suit is, in fact, founded on a cause of action distinct from that which was the foundation of the former suit.” (Quoted in: Cuddalore Powergen Corporation Ltd. v. Chemplast Cuddalore Vinyls Ltd. J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan, JJ., Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 73)

Referring various decisions it is observed in Cuddalore Powergen Corporation Ltd. v. Chemplast Cuddalore Vinyls Ltd. J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan, JJ., Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 73, to the following effect:

• the omission in the first suit must have been “deliberate“
• the relief in the second suit must have been “available” at the time of the first suit.
• cause of action in both suits must have been “identical” in substance and not merely technically.
• “evidence required” to support the claims must have been the same.

Read Also:

• A Landmark Decision on Order II rule 2, CPC – Cuddalore Powergen Corporation Ltd. v. Chemplast Cuddalore Vinyls Ltd., Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 73

The Apex Court held in Cuddalore Powergen Corporation as under:

• “These observations show that in considering whether the cause of action in the subsequent suit is the same or not as the cause of action in the previous suit, the test to be applied is, are the causes of action in the two suits in substance-not technically-identical?
• Applying this test the learned Judges came to the conclusion that the causes of action in the two suits in Brunsden v. Humphrey[(14 Q.B.D. 141). were distinct. Observations to the same effect appear in certain decisions of this Board. In Soorjomonee Dayee v. Suddanund [12 Beng. [(1873) 12 Beng L.R. 304, 315], their Lordships stated as follows:-
• “Their Lordships are of opinion that the term “cause of action” is to be construed with reference rather to the substance than to the form of action.”
• In Krishna Behari Roy v. Brojeswari Chowdranne [(1875) LR 2.I.A. 283, 285.], Sir Montague Smith in delivering the judgment of the Board observed:- “their Lordships are of opinion that the expression “cause of action” cannot be taken in its literal and most restricted sense. But however that may be.”

Earlier SC Decisions – INJUNCTION is a ‘Possessory Remedy’ in Indian Law

It is also important to note:

It is a trite law that courts protect settled possession. The person claiming the injunction needs to prove prove possession only (and not title).

See:

• Poona Ram v. Moti Ram, AIR 2019 SC 813,
• Aarthi v. Aruna Gautham. 2015 -1 RCR (Civil) 160,
• Rame Gowda v. M. Varadappa Naidu, 2004-1 SCC 769.
• Krishna Ram Mahale v. Shobha Venkat Rao, (1989) 4 SCC 131.
• Ram Rattan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1977) 1 SCC 188.
• Puran Singh v. The State of Punjab, (1975) 4 SCC 518.
• Munshi Ram v. Delhi Administration, (1968) 2 SCR 455.

Criticism  and Conclusion

The necessary ingredients to attract Order II rule 2 are (i) the same causes of action in two suits and (ii) a fair requirement of making a relief in the earlier suit. The earlier suit in Channappa v. Parvatewwa, 2026 INSC 343, was one for a declaration regarding adoption and injunction. It was decreed in favour the plaintiff. The subsequent suit was for relief of declaration of title and the consequential possession.

The bar of constructive res judicata, as well as that under Order II Rule 2 CPC, was held to apply to the second suit, since Channappa (the defendant) had already disputed the plaintiff’s rights in the property in the first suit, and asserted his own title on the basis of adoption. The Apex Court held as under:

• “In the present case, Parvatewwa (plaintiff) herself had pleaded in the earlier proceedings that Channappa (defendant) was asserting rights over the suit properties on the basis of the adoption. The dispute as to the parties’ respective rights over the property was, therefore, already in existence at the time of institution of Suit–I. In such circumstances, the relief of declaration of title and the consequential relief relating to possession could and ought to have been claimed in the earlier proceedings.”

Traditionally, a claim for declaration of title coupled with recovery of possession arises only upon dispossession. In the present case, it may be argued – had the plaintiff been actually dispossessed on the date of the cause of action for the first suit, the relief of injunction would not have been granted in that proceeding. On that view, no fault can be found with the plaintiff for not seeking declaration of title and recovery of possession in the earlier suit.

Further, the omission in the first suit was not “deliberate”; the relief claimed in the second suit was not “available” at the time of the first suit; the causes of action in the two suits were not identical in substance; and the evidence required to support the claims in the two suits was not the same.

Therefore, the facts of this case seem to present a real and arguable difficulty in treating the second suit as defective.

Nevertheless, the answer to the above can be derived from the very facts of Channappa v. Parvatewwa, following the Court’s own formulation, as follows:

• (i) the relief of declaration as to adoption and the consequential injunction (sought in the first suit) were closely connected with the relief of declaration on title sought in the second suit, even if both declarations were not essential in the first suit;
• (ii) the plaintiff was “entitled to make” relief of ‘declaration of title’ in the earlier suit; and
• (iii) the decision aligns with the objective of avoiding multiplicity of proceedings.

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

• Channappa v.  Parvatewwa, 2026 INSC 343: Suit Dismissed for Order II Rule 2 Bar: For No ‘Consequential Declaration’ on Title, in the Earlier Suit 
• Applicability of Res Judicata on IA Orders (at Different Stages of the Same Suit) 
• Rejection of Plaint is a Procedural Termination, and Dismissal of Suit on Preliminary Issue is a Summary Decision on Merits
• Can a Suit be Rejected on the Inherent Power of the Court?
• Did the Supreme Court Depart From its Earlier Position in Hussain Ahmed Choudhury v. Habibur Rahman, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 892, in its Subsequent Decision in Shanti Devi v. Jagan Devi, 2025 INSC 1105?
• Time City Infrastructure and Housing Ltd v. State of UP: Non-Compliance in taking Postal Steps – Court Should Vacate the Ad-Interim Injunction Order
• “Due Process of Law” in Civil Suits
• Can a suit be Rejected (Order VII rule 11 CPC) on the Ground of Res Judicata?
• Operation Asha  v. Shelly Batra, a Landmark Judgment on Sec. 92 CPC– Critical Appreciation
• If a Sharer Dies & the LRs are Not Impleaded – Partition Suit as a Whole Abates. But the Court SHOULD Direct Either Side to Take Steps to Bring in the Legal Heirs
• Order IX Rule 9 CPC: Earlier Suit for Injunction; Subsequent Suit for Recovery & Injunction – No Bar
• H. Anjanappa v. A. Prabhakar: An ‘Aggrieved’ Stranger or a ‘Prejudicially Affected’ Third-Party (also) Can File Appeal with the ‘Leave of the Court’.
• Replication, Rejoinder and Amendment of Pleadings
• Can a Suit be Withdrawn in Appeal, on the Ground that Appeal is Continuation of the Suit?
• Does Registration of a Document give Notice to the Whole World?
• Suit under Sec. 6, Specific Relief Act – Is it a ‘Summary Suit’ under Order XXXVII CPC?
• Is it Mandatory to Lift the Attachment on Dismissal of the Suit? Will the Attachment Orders Get Revived on Restoration of Suit?
• Will Interlocutory Orders and Applications Get Revived on Restoration of Suit?
• Can an ‘Ex-parte’ Defendant Cross Examine Plaintiff’s Witness?
• Proof on ‘Truth of Contents’ of Documents, in Indian Evidence Act
• Civil Rights and Jurisdiction of Civil Courts
• Res Judicata and Constructive Res Judicata
• Applicability of Res Judicata on IA Orders (at Different Stages of the Same Suit) 
• Res Judicata and Judicial Precedent
• What is Binding Judicial Precedent – In a Nutshell
• No Res judicata on Finding on Title in an Injunction Suit
• Res Judicata: ‘Same issue’ must have been ‘Adjudicated’ in the former suit
• Res Judicata and Appeal: No Res Judicata on Adverse Findings, in a Favourable Decree
• Order II, Rule 2 CPC – Not to Vex Defendants Twice
• A Land Mark Decision on Order II rule 2, CPC – Cuddalore Powergen Corporation Ltd. v. Chemplast Cuddalore Vinyls Ltd., Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 73
• Order I rule 8, CPC (Representative Suit) When and How? Whether Order I rule 8 Decree is Enforceable in Execution?
• Pleadings Should be Specific; Why?
• Pleadings in Defamation Suits
• Previous Owner is Not a Necessary Party in a Recovery Suit
• UNDUE INFLUENCE and PLEADINGS thereof in Indian Law
• PLEADINGS IN ELECTION MATTERS
• Declaration and Injunction
• Law on Summons to Defendants and Witnesses
• Notice to Produce Documents in Civil Cases
• Production of Documents: Order 11, Rule 14 & Rule 12
• Sec. 91 CPC and Suits Against Wrongful Acts
• Remedies Under Sec. 92 CPC
• Mandatory Injunction – Law and Principles
• INJUNCTION is a ‘Possessory Remedy’ in Indian Law
• Interrogatories: When Court Allows, When Rejects?
• Decree in OI R8 CPC-Suit & Eo-Nomine Parties
• Pecuniary & Subject-Matter Jurisdiction of Civil Courts
• Transfer of Property with Conditions & Contingent Interests
• Doctrine of Substantial Representation in a Suit by or against an Association
• Who are Necessary Parties, Proper Parties and Pro Forma Parties in Suits
• What is Partnership, in Law? How to Sue a Firm?
• ‘Legal Representatives’, Not ‘Legal Heirs’ to be Impleaded on Death of Plaintiff/Defendant
• Powers and Duties of Commissioners to Make Local Investigations, Under CPC
• Burden of Proof – Initial Burden and Shifting Onus
• Burden on Plaintiff to Prove Title; Weakness of Defence Will Not Entitle a Decree
• Is it Mandatory to Set Aside the Commission Report – Where a Second Commissioner is Appointed?
• Can a Commission be Appointed to Find Out the Physical Possession of a Property?
• Can the Court issue a Second Commission without Setting Aside First Commission Report?
• Withholding Evidence and Adverse Inference
• Pendente Lite Transferee Cannot Resist or Obstruct Execution of a Decree
• Family Settlement or Family Arrangement in Law
• ‘Possessory Title’ in Indian Law
• Will Findings of a Civil Court Outweigh Findings of a Criminal Court?
• Relevancy of Civil Case Judgments in Criminal Cases
• Waiver and Promissory Estoppel
• Can a Christian Adopt? Will an adopted child get share in the property of adoptive parents?
• Principles of Equity in Indian Law
• Thangam v.  Navamani Ammal: Did the Supreme Court lay down – Written Statements which deal with each allegation specifically, but not “para-wise”, are vitiated?
• No Criminal Case on a Dispute Essentially Civil in Nature.
• Doctrine of Substantial Representation in Suits
• Order I rule 8, CPC (Representative Suit) When and How? Whether Order I rule 8 Decree is Enforceable in Execution?
• Appointment of Guardian for Persons Suffering from Disability or Illness: Inadequacy of Law – Shame to Law Making Institutions
• Can Documents be Marked In Cross Examination, If Witness Admits Them?
• Why Should Foundational or Crucial Documents Be Produced Along With the Plaint or WS
• Fraudulent or Void Transaction: Is ‘Declaration’ Necessary? No is the Answer: Shanti Devi v. Jagan Devi, 2025 INSC 1105.

Principles and Procedure

• Doctrines of ‘Legislation by Reference’ and ‘Legislation by Incorporation’
• What is the Period of Limitation for a Suit on a Promissory Note?
• Relevancy of a Civil Case Judgment in Criminal Cases: Does a Civil Court Judgment Bind a Criminal Court?
• When can (i) a ‘Victim’ File an Appeal in a Criminal Case and  (ii) an ‘Aggrieved Person’ File an Appeal in a Civil Case?
• Asian Paints Limited v. Ram Babu, 2025 INSC 828 – ‘Victim’ Can File an Appeal in a Criminal Case
• BURDEN of PROOF: Initial Burden and Shifting the Onus in Indian and English Law
• H. Anjanappa v. A. Prabhakar: An ‘Aggrieved’ Stranger or a ‘Prejudicially Affected’ Third-Party (also) Can File Appeal with the ‘Leave of the Court’.
• Our Courts Apply Different ‘STANDADARDS of Proof’
• Ratio Decidendi (alone) Forms a Precedent, Not a Final Order
• What is Binding Judicial Precedent – In a Nutshell
• BNSS – Major Changes from CrPC
• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: Important Changes from the Indian Penal Code
• Substantive Rights and Mistakes & Procedural Defects in Judicial Proceedings
• Can Documents be Marked In Cross Examination, If Witness Admits Them?
• Will Boundaries of Properties (Always) Preferred Over Survey Number, Extent, Side Measurements, etc.?
• Mistake in Boundary or Survey Number will not Invalidate a Document; Insignificant Errors in Pleadings will not Disentitle a Decree
• All Illegal Agreements are Void; but All Void Agreements are Not Illegal
• Doctrines on Ultra Vires, Rule of Law, Judicial Review, Nullification of Mandamus, and Removing the BASIS of the Judgment
• Can an ‘Ex-parte’ Defendant Cross Examine Plaintiff’s Witness?
• Will – Probate and Letters of Administration
• Appreciation of Evidence by Court and ‘Preponderance of Probabilities’ & ‘Probative Value of Evidence
• Effect of Not Cross-Examining a Witness & Effect of Not Facing Complete Cross-Examination by the Witness
• Suggestions & Admissions by Counsel, in Cross Examination to Witnesses
• Admission by itself Cannot Confer Title
• Best Evidence Rule in Indian Law
• Declaration and Injunction
• Pleadings Should be Specific; Why?
• Does Alternate Remedy Bar Civil Suits and Writ Petitions?
• Void, Voidable, Ab Initio Void, and Sham Transactions
• If a Document is Per Se Illegal, or Void Ab Initio, it Need Not be Set Aside
• Can Courts Award Interest on Equitable Grounds?
• Natural Justice – Not an Unruly Horse
• Krishnadatt Awasthy v. State Of M.P, 29 January, 2025 – Law on Natural Justice Revisited
• ‘Sound-mind’ and ‘Unsound-Mind’
• Prescriptive Rights – Inchoate until the Title thereof is Upheld by a Competent Court
• ‘Title’ and ‘Ownership’ in Indian Law
• Can a Party to Suit Examine Opposite Party, as of Right?
• Forfeiture of Earnest Money and Reasonable Compensation
• Doctrine of ‘Right to be Forgotten’ in Indian Law
• Proof on ‘Truth of Contents’ of Documents, in Indian Evidence Act
• Cheating and Breach of Contract: Distinction – Fraudulent Intention at the time of Promise.
• Declaration of Title & Recovery of Possession: Art. 65, not Art. 58, Limitation Act Governs
• What is COGNIZANCE and Application of Mind by a Magistrate?
• Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust v. Shrimant Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Pratapsinh Maharaj Bhonsle: Rejection of Plaint on ‘Bar of Limitation’ on Plea of Fraud.
• Why Should Foundational or Crucial Documents Be Produced Along With the Plaint or WS
• Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma v. The State of Gujarat: The Police have No Discretion to conduct a Preliminary Inquiry Before Registering an FIR in Cognizable Offences

PROPERTY LAW

Title, ownership and Possession

• M.V. Ramachandrasa v.  Mahendra Watch Company, 2026 INSC 348: Decision on Subletting Without Consent of Landlord
• ‘Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet’
• Section 27, Limitation Act Gives-Rise to a Substantive Right so as to Seek Declaration and Recovery
• Sale Deeds Without Consideration – Void
• Tenancy at Sufferance in Indian Law
• “Due Process of Law” in Civil Suits
• Revenue Settlement Registers of Travancore in 1910, Basic Record of Land matters
• Govt. of AP v. Thummala Krishna Rao, AIR 1982 SC 1081, 1982 (2) SCC 134, Misread by High Courts

Recovery of Possession: 

• Recovery of Possession Based on Title and on Earlier Possession
• Recovery of Possession (Based on Title) and Eviction (of Tenants)
• Declaration of Title & Recovery of Possession: Art. 65, not Art. 58, Limitation Act Governs
• Title and Ownership and Possessory Title in Indian Law
• Does Registration of a Document give Notice to the Whole World?
• Admission by itself Cannot Confer Title
• POSSESSION is a Substantive Right in Indian Law
• 22nd Law Commission  Report on ‘Law on Adverse Possession’
• Adverse Possession Against Government
• Government of Kerala v. Joseph – Law on Adverse Possession Against Government
• Should the Government Prove Title in Recovery Suits
• How to Plead Adverse Possession? Adverse Possession: An Evolving Concept
• Adverse Possession: Burden to Plead Sabotaged
• Does ‘Abandonment’ Give rise to a Recognised Right in Indian Law?
• When ‘Possession Follows Title’; ‘Title Follows Possession’?
• Ultimate Ownership of All Property Vests in State; It is an Incident of Sovereignty.
• ‘Mutation’ by Revenue Authorities & Survey will not Confer ‘Title’
• Preemption is a Very Weak Right; For, Property Right is a Constitutional & Human Right
• Transfer of Property with Conditions & Contingent Interests
• Family Settlement or Family Arrangement in Law
• INJUNCTION is a ‘Possessory Remedy’ in Indian Law
• ‘Possessory Title’ in Indian Law
• Kesar Bai v. Genda Lal – Does Something Remain Untold?
• Grant in Law
• Termination of Tenancy (& Grant) by Forfeiture (for Claiming Title)
• Survey under Survey Act – Raises a Presumption on Boundary; though Not Confer Title
• SUIT on TITLE: Landlord can Recover Property on GENERAL TITLE (though Tenancy Not Proved) if Defendant Falsely Claimed Independent Title
• Even the Rightful Owner is NOT entitled to Eject a Trespasser, by Force
• Ryotwari System in Madras

Adverse Possession

• Illegal, Mistaken or Fraudulent Registration of Deed, and Subsequent Mutation: No Adverse Possession
• Adverse Possession: A Concise Overview
• What is Adverse Possession in Indian Law?
• Neelam Gupta v. Rajendra Kumar Gupta (AIR 2024 SC 5374) – Supreme Court Denied the Tenant’s Claim of Adverse Possession
• Adverse Possession: How to Plead Adverse Possession? Adverse Possession: An Evolving Concept
• Adverse Possession Against Government
• Govt. of AP v. Thummala Krishna Rao, AIR 1982 SC 1081, 1982 (2) SCC 134, Misread by High Courts
• Adverse Possession: Burden to Plead Sabotaged
• Does ‘Abandonment’ Give rise to a Recognised Right in Indian Law?
• When ‘Possession Follows Title’; ‘Title Follows Possession’?
• Government of Kerala v. Joseph – Law on Adverse Possession Against Government
• Should the Government Prove Title in Recovery Suits
• ‘Possessory Title’ in Indian Law
• Admission by itself Cannot Confer Title
• Ouster and Dispossession in Adverse Possession
• Declaration of Title & Recovery of Possession: Art. 65, not Art. 58, Limitation Act Governs
• Mallavva v. Kalsammanavara Kalamma, 2024 INSC 1021, Composite Suit (Cancellation & Recovery) – Substantive Relief Determines Limitation  
• The Laws of ‘Doctrine of Election’ and ‘Doctrine of Waiver’

Land Laws/ Transfer of Property Act

• Bona Fide Purchaser for Value Deserves Stronger Equity than a Prior Contract Holder
• Travancore Royal Pattom Proclamations of 1040 (1865 AD) and 1061 (1886 AD), And 1922 Devaswom Proclamation
• Revenue Settlement Registers of Travancore in 1910, Basic Record of Land matters
• Tenancy at Sufferance in Indian Law
• Freehold Property in Law
• What is Patta or Pattayam?
• Does ‘Pandaravaka Pattom’ in Kerala Denote Full-Ownership?
• Transfer of Property with Conditions & Contingent Interests
• Previous Owner is Not a Necessary Party in a Recovery Suit
• Recovery of Possession Based on Title and on Earlier Possession
• Recovery of Possession (Based on Title) and Eviction (of Tenants)
• Vested Remainder and Contingent Remainder
• Vested interest and Contingent Interest
• Ultimate Ownership of All Property Vests in State; It is an Incident of Sovereignty.
• Land Acquired Cannot be Returned – Even if it is Not Used for the Purpose Acquired
• ‘Mutation’ by Revenue Authorities & Survey will not Confer ‘Title’
• Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. v. State of Kerala (2026:KER:19290): Transfer of Registry can be Claimed only on Proper Application, with Supporting Documents
• FERA, 1973 And Transfer of Immovable Property by a Foreigner
• Marumakkathayam – A System of Law and Way of Life Prevailed in Kerala
• Land Tenures, and History of Land Derivation, in Kerala
• Glen Leven Estate v. State of Kerala: Not Correctly Decided?
• Sale Deeds Without Consideration – Void
• If a Document is Per Se Illegal, or Void Ab Initio, it Need Not be Set Aside
• Law on SUCCESSION CERTIFICATE and LEGAL HEIRSHIP CERTIFICATE
• Sec. 7 Easements Act – Natural Advantages Arising from the Situation of Land & Natural Flow of Water
• Grant in Law
• Should the Government Prove Title in Recovery Suits
• Title of the Government Property in India: Government is the Ultimate Owner of Every Property; Hence, Government Need Not Prove Title.
• Survey under Survey Act – Raises a Presumption on Boundary; though Not Confer Title
• Mistake in Boundary or Survey Number will not Invalidate a Document; Insignificant Errors in Pleadings will not Disentitle a Decree

Land Reform Laws

• Ten Square Miles Concession and Kanan Devan Hills Concession – State Grants of Travancore Governments
• Plantation-Tenants Not Approached The Land Tribunal are Ineligible for Plantation-Exemption-Orders from the Land Board
• Acquisition of (Exempted) Plantation Property: Should the Govt. Pay Full Land Value to Land Owners?
• Relevant provisions of Kerala Land Reforms Act in a Nutshell
• Land Tenures, and History of Land Derivation, in Kerala
• Should the Government Prove Title in Recovery Suits
• ‘Janmam’ Right is FREEHOLD Interest and ‘Estate’ in Constitution – By Royal Proclamation of 1899, The Travancore Sircar became Janmi of Poonjar Raja’s Land
• Government is the OWNER of (Leasehold) Plantation Lands in Kerala.
• Title of the Government Property in India: Government is the Ultimate Owner of Every Property; Hence, Government Need Not Prove Title.
• Glen Leven Estate v. State of Kerala: Not Correctly Decided?
• Law on Acquisition of Private Plantation Land in Kerala
• Plantation Exemption in Kerala Land Reforms Act–in a Nutshell
• Kerala Land Reforms Act – Provisions on Plantation-Tenancy and Land-Tenancy
• Grant in Law
• Balanoor Plantations & Industries Ltd. v. State of Kerala – Based on the Principle: LT to fix Tenancy’; TLB to Fix Plantation Exemption.  
• 1910 Settlement Register of Travancore – Basic Record of Land Matters
• Do the Plantation-Tenants have the Right to Seek ‘Assignment’ of the Entire Plantation-Tenancy-Land (under Purchase Certificates)?

Power of attorney

• M.S. Ananthamurthy v. J. Manjula: Mere Word ‘Irrevocable’ Does Not Make a POWER OF ATTORNEY Irrevocable
• Can a Power of Attorney file a Civil Suit? Is there any bar by virtue of Manisha Mahendra Gala v. Shalini Bhagwan Avatramani, 2024-6 SCC 130?
• No Adjudication If Power of Attorney is Sufficiently Stamped
• Notary Attested Power-of-Attorney Sufficient for Registration
• Notary-Attested Documents and Presumptions
• Permission when a Power of Attorney Holder Files Suit
• If Power of Attorney himself Executes the Document, S. 33 Registration Act will NOT be attracted
• Should a Power of Attorney for Sale must have been Registered –
• Is Registered Power of Attorney Necessary for Registration of a Deed? No.

Evidence Act – General

• Newspaper Reports are ‘Hearsay Secondary Evidence’
• Major Changes in the Evidence Act by Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
• Sec. 27 Recovery/Discovery in Evidence Act and Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
• Evidence in Court – General Principles
• Expert Evidence and Appreciation of Evidence
• Handwriting Expert Evidence: Relevant, But Merely an Opinion
• How to Contradict a Witness under Sec. 145, Evidence Act
• Withholding Evidence and Adverse Inference
• Best Evidence Rule in Indian Law
• What is Collateral Purpose?
• Burden of Proof – Initial Burden and Shifting Onus
• Appreciation of Evidence by Court and ‘Preponderance of Probabilities’ & ‘Probative Value of Evidence
• Effect of Not Cross-Examining a Witness & Effect of Not Facing Complete Cross Examination by the Witness
• Suggestions & Admissions by Counsel, in Cross Examination to Witnesses
• Proof of Documents – Admission, Expert Evidence, Presumption etc.
• Public Documents: Proof and Presumption
• Admission by itself Cannot Confer Title
• How to Prove a Will, in Court?Is Presumption enough to Prove a Registered Will?
• Significance of Scientific Evidence in Judicial Process
• Polygraphy, Narco Analysis and Brain Mapping Tests
• What is Section 27 Evidence Act – Recovery or Discovery?
• How ‘Discovery’ under Section 27, Evidence Act, Proved?
• Pictorial Testimony Theory and Silent Witnesses Theory
• Sec. 35 Evidence Act: Presumption of Truth and Probative Value
• Proof on ‘Truth of Contents’ of Documents, in Indian Evidence Act

Sec. 65B

• Admissibility of Electronic Evidence: Does Section 61 of the BSA Permit Oral Proof (Overriding Arjun Panditrao)
• Law on Electronic Evidence in India: A Comparative Analysis with Other Jurisdictions
• Hash Value Certificate – Mandatory or Directory
• Sakshya Adhiniyam (Literally) Mandates Hashing the Original. But the Established Jurisprudence Requires Hashing the Copy.
• Sec. 27 Recovery/Discovery in Evidence Act and Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
• Sec. 65B (Electronic Records) and Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
• Sec. 65B, Evidence Act: Arjun Paditrao Criticised.
• Sec. 65B Evidence Act Simplified
• ‘STATEMENTS’ alone can be proved by ‘CERTIFICATE’ u/s. 65B
• Sec. 65B,  Evidence Act: Certificate forms
• “Nothing In This Adhiniyam Shall Apply To Deny The Admissibility” – New Provision (Sec. 61, BSA) to ensure that Sec. 65B (Sec. 63, BSA) is an enabling provision
• Certificate is Required Only for ‘Computer Output’; Not for ‘Electronic Records’: Arjun Panditrao Explored.
• How to Prove ‘Whatsap Messages’, ‘Facebook’ and ‘Website’ in Courts?

Admission, Relevancy and Proof

• ‘Admission’ in Indian Law
• Relevancy, Admissibility and Proof of Documents
• Handwriting Expert Evidence: Relevant, But Merely an Opinion
• Admission of Documents in Evidence on ‘Admission’
• Admission by itself Cannot Confer Title
• Judicial Admissions in Pleadings: Admissible Proprio Vigore Against the Maker
• Document Exhibited in the Writ Petition as ‘True Copy’ – Can it be Used in a Civil Suit as ‘Admission’?
• Modes of Proof of Documents
• Proof of Documents & Objections To Admissibility – How & When?
• Should Objection to Marking Documents be Raised When it is Admitted; Is it Enough to Challenge them in Cross-Examination?
• Burden of Proof – Initial Burden and Shifting Onus
• Burden on Plaintiff to Prove Title; Weakness of Defence Will Not Entitle a Decree
• Appreciation of Evidence by Court and ‘Preponderance of Probabilities’ & ‘Probative Value of Evidence
• Production, Admissibility & Proof Of Documents
• Proof of Documents – Admission, Expert Evidence, Presumption etc.
• Marking Documents Without Objection – Do Contents Proved
• Can Documents be Marked In Cross Examination, If Witness Admits Them?
• Substantive Documents, and Documents used for Refreshing Memory and Contradicting 
• Oral Evidence on Contents of Document, Irrelevant
• Proof on ‘Truth of Contents’ of Documents, in Indian Evidence Act
• Relevancy of Civil Case Judgments in Criminal Cases
• Prem Raj v.  Poonamma Menon (SC), April 2, 2024 – An Odd Decision on ‘Civil Court Judgment does not Bind Criminal Court’

Law on Documents

• Public Documents: Proof and Presumption
• Public Documents Admissible Without Formal Proof
• Admitted Documents – Can the Court Refrain from Marking, for no Formal Proof?
• Does Registration of a Document give Notice to the Whole World?
• Production, Admissibility & Proof Of Documents
• Relevancy, Admissibility and Proof of Documents
• Admission of Documents in Evidence on ‘Admission’
• Effect of Marking Documents Without Objection – Do Contents Stand Proved?
• Time Limit for Registration of Documents
• Registration of Documents Executed out of India
• How to Prove a Will, in Court?Is Presumption enough to Prove a Registered Will?
• Are RTI Documents Admissible in Evidence as ‘Public Documents’?
• Oral Evidence on Contents of Document, Irrelevant
• Proof of Documents & Objections To Admissibility – How & When?
• Notary-Attested Documents and Presumptions
• What is Collateral Purpose?
• No Application Needed for Filing or Admitting Copy
• Presumptions on Documents and Truth of Contents
• Presumptions on Registered Documents & Truth of Contents
• Notice to Produce Documents in Civil Cases
• Production of Documents: Order 11, Rule 14 & Rule 12
• Modes of Proof of Documents
• Secondary Evidence of Documents & Objections to Admissibility – How & When?
• Should Objection to Marking Documents be Raised When it is Admitted; Is it Enough to Challenge them in Cross-Examination?
• 30 Years Old Documents and Presumption of Truth of Contents, under Sec. 90 Evidence Act
• Unstamped & Unregistered Documents and Collateral Purpose
• Adjudication as to Proper Stamp under Stamp Act
• Marking Documents Without Objection – Do Contents Proved
• Cancellation of Sale Deeds and Settlement Deeds & Powers of Sub-Registrar in cancelling Deeds
• Cancellation, Avoidance or Declaration of a Void or Voidable Deed
• If a Document is Per Se Illegal, or Void Ab Initio, it Need Not be Set Aside
• Can the True Owner Seek Cancellation of a Deed, Executed by a Stranger to the Property
• Substantive Documents, and Documents used for Refreshing Memory and Contradicting 
• How to Contradict a Witness under Sec. 145, Evidence Act
• Visual and Audio Evidence (Including Photographs, Cassettes, Tape-recordings, Films, CCTV Footage, CDs, e-mails, Chips, Hard-discs, Pen-drives)
• Photograph Evidence, Its Admissibility and Photo-Identification in Court Cases
• Pictorial Testimony Theory and Silent Witnesses Theory
• No Adjudication Needed If Power of Attorney is Sufficiently Stamped
• Can an Unregistered Sale Agreement be Used for Specific Performance
• Impounding of Documents – When Produced; Cannot Wait Till it is Exhibited
• Sec. 35 Evidence Act: Presumption of Truth and Probative Value
• How to Prove Resolutions of a Company; Are Minutes Necessary?

Documents – Proof and Presumption

• Contents of a Document are to be Proved in Court by Producing Original or Secondary Evidence
• Handwriting Expert Evidence: Relevant, But Merely an Opinion
• Public Documents: Proof and Presumption
• Can the Court Refuse to Mark a (Relevant and Admissible) Document, for (i) there is No Formal Proof or (ii) it is a Photocopy?
• Photograph Evidence, Its Admissibility and Photo-Identification in Court Cases
• Marking of Photocopy and Law on Marking Documents on Admission (Without Formal Proof)
• Proof of Documents – Admission, Expert Evidence, Presumption etc.
• Proof on ‘Truth of Contents’ of Documents, in Indian Evidence Act
• Modes of Proof of Documents
• ‘Admission’ in Indian Law
• Marking Documents Without Objection – Do Contents Proved
• Proof on ‘Truth of Contents’ of Documents, in Indian Evidence Act
• Admitted Documents – Can the Court Refrain from Marking, for no Formal Proof?
• Admission of Documents in Evidence on ‘Admission’
• Effect of Marking Documents Without Objection – Do Contents Stand Proved?
• Proof of Documents & Objections To Admissibility – How & When?
• Should Objection to Marking Documents be Raised When it is Admitted; Is it Enough to Challenge them in Cross-Examination?
• Presumptions on Documents and Truth of Contents
• Presumptions on Registered Documents & Truth of Contents
• Secondary Evidence of Documents & Objections to Admissibility – How & When?
• 30 Years Old Documents and Presumption of Truth of Contents, under Sec. 90 Evidence Act

Interpretation

• Interpretation of Documents – Literal Rule, Mischief Rule and Golden Rule
• Golden Rule of Interpretation is Not the Application of Plain Meaning of the Words
• Interpretation of Wills
• Appreciation of Evidence by Court and ‘Preponderance of Probabilities’ & ‘Probative Value of Evidence

Contract Act

• What is the Period of Limitation for a Suit on a Promissory Note?
• Can Filing a Suit Amount to Notice of Termination of Contract
• Godrej Projects Development Limited v. Anil Karlekar, 2025 INSC 143 – Supreme Court Missed to State Something
• ‘Sound-mind’ and ‘Unsound-Mind’ in Indian Civil Laws
• Forfeiture of Earnest Money and Reasonable Compensation
• Who has to fix Damages in Tort and Contract?
• UNDUE INFLUENCE and PLEADINGS thereof in Indian Law
• All Illegal Agreements are Void; but All Void Agreements are Not Illegal
• If a Document is Per Se Illegal, or Void Ab Initio, it Need Not be Set Aside
• Can an Unregistered Sale Agreement be Used for Specific Performance
• Cheating and Breach of Contract: Distinction – Fraudulent Intention at the time of Promise.

Law on Damages

• Law on Damages
• Who has to fix Damages in Tort and Contract?
• Law on Damages in Defamation Cases
• Pleadings in Defamation Suits
• Godrej Projects Development Limited v. Anil Karlekar, 2025 INSC 143 – Supreme Court Missed to State Something

Easement

• Easement Simplified
• What is Easement? Does Right of Easement Allow to ‘Enjoy’ Servient Land After Making Improvements Therein ?
• “Implied Grant” in Law of Easements
• Implied Grant: A Valid Mode of Creation of Easement under Indian Law
• “Title Thereto” in the Definition of ‘Prescriptive Easement’ in Sec. 15 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882
• Prescriptive Rights – Inchoate until the Title thereof is Upheld by a Competent Court
• Will Easement of Necessity Ripen into a Prescriptive Easement?
• What is “period ending within two years next before the institution of the suit” in Easement by Prescription?
• Is the Basis of Every Easement, Theoretically, a Grant
• Extent of Easement (Width of Way) in Easement of Necessity, Quasi Easement and Implied Grant
• Easement of Necessity and Prescriptive Easement are Mutually Destructive; But, Easement of Necessity and Implied Grant Can be Claimed Alternatively
• Can Easement of Necessity and of Grant be Claimed in a Suit (Alternatively)?
• Can an Easement-Way be Altered by the Owner of the Land?
• Village Pathways and Right to Bury are not Easements.
• Custom & Customary Easements in Indian Law
• ‘Additional Burden Loses Lateral Support’ – Incorrect Proposition
• Grant in Law
• Right of Private Way Beyond (Other Than) Easement
• Easement – Should Date of Beginning of 20 Years be pleaded?
• What is Easement, in law? Right of Easement Simplified
• One Year Interruption or Obstruction will not affect Prescriptive Easement
• Should the Plaintiff Schedule Servient Heritage in a Suit Claiming Perspective Easement?
• Necessary Parties in Suits on Easement
• Easement by Prescription – Grant or ‘Acquiring’ by “Hostile Act”
• Sec. 7 Easements Act – Natural Advantages Arising from the Situation of Land & Natural Flow of Water
• Licence and Irrevocable Licence: Section 60 Easements Act Applies only to ‘Bare Licences’ and Not to ‘Contractual Licences’

Stamp Act & Registration

• Sub-Registrar has no Authority to Ascertain whether the Vendor has Title
• Title Enquiry by the Sub Registrar is Illegal
• Cancellation of Sale Deeds and Settlement Deeds & Powers of Sub-Registrar in Cancelling Deeds
• Time-Limit For Adjudication of Unstamped Documents, before Collector
• Time Limit for Registration of Documents
• Presumptions on Registered Documents & Truth of Contents
• Registration of Documents Executed out of India
• Does Registration of a Document give Notice to the Whole World?
• LAW ON INSUFFICIENTLY STAMPED DOCUMENTS 
• Adjudication as to Proper Stamp under Stamp Act
• Unstamped & Unregistered Documents and Collateral Purpose
• Can an Unregistered Sale Agreement be Used for Specific Performance
• Impounding of Documents, When Produced; Cannot Wait Till it is Exhibited
• No Adjudication Needed If Power of Attorney is Sufficiently Stamped
• Notary Attested Power-of-Attorney Sufficient for Registration
• What is Torrens System

Divorce/Marriage

• Presumption of Valid Marriage – If lived together for Long Spell
• Validity of Foreign Divorce Decrees in India
• Is ‘Irretrievable Brake-down of Marriage’, a Valid Ground for Divorce in India?
• Foreign Divorce Judgment against Christians having Indian Domicile

Negotiable Instruments Act

• Presumptions Regarding Consideration in Cheque Cases under the NI Act
• An Inchoate Cheque (Signed Blank Cheque or Incomplete Cheque) Cannot be Enforced Through a Court of Law Invoking Presumptions under the NI Act
• Does Cheque-Case under Sec. 138, NI Act Lie Against a Trust?
• Sec. 138 NI Act (Cheque) Cases: Presumption of Consideration u/s. 118
• Even if ‘Signed-Blank-Cheque’, No Burden on Complainant to Prove Consideration; Rebuttal can be by a Probable Defence
• “Otherwise Through an Account” in Section 142, NI Act
• Where to file Cheque Bounce Cases (Jurisdiction of Court – to file NI Act Complaint)?
• Cheque Dishonour Case against a Company, Firm or Society
• What is ‘Cognizance’ in Law
• What is COGNIZANCE and Application of Mind by a Magistrate?

Criminal

• Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma v. The State of Gujarat: The police have no discretion to conduct a preliminary inquiry before registering an FIR in cognizable offences
• Sadiq B. Hanchinmani v. The State of Karnataka: Supreme Court held – Commission of Cognizable Offence, On the Face of it, Merit Police Investigation
• ‘Prima Facie Case’ in Criminal Cases

Arbitration

• Seesaw of Supreme Court in NN Global Mercantile v. Indo Unique Flame
• N.N. Global Mercantile (P) Ltd. v. Indo Unique Flame Ltd. and Ground Realities of Indian Situation
• What are Non-Arbitrable Disputes? When a Dispute is Not Referred to Arbitration in spite of Arbitration Clause
• Termination or Nullity of Contract Will Not Cease Efficacy of the Arbitration Clause
• No Valid Arbitration Agreement ‘Exists’ – Can Arbitration Clause be Invoked?

Will

• Witnesses to the Will Need Not See the Execution of the Will
• Interpretation of Wills
• Interpretation of Inconsistent Clauses in a Will
• Will – Probate and Letters of Administration
• Executors of Will – Duties & their Removal
• How to Prove a Will, in Court?Is Presumption enough to Prove a Registered Will?
• How to Write a Will? Requirements of a Valid Will
• When Execution of a Will is ‘Admitted’ by the Opposite Side, Should it be ‘Proved’?
• A Witness to Hindu-Will will not Lose Benefit

Book No. 2: A Handbook on Constitutional Issues

• Judicial & Legislative Activism in India: Principles and Instances
• Can Legislature Overpower Court Decisions by an Enactment?
• Separation of Powers: Who Wins the Race – Legislature or Judiciary?
• Kesavananda Bharati Case: Never Ending Controversy
• Mullaperiyar Dam: Disputes and Adjudication of Legal Issues
• Article 370: Is There Little Chance for Supreme Court Interference
• Maratha Backward Community Reservation: SC Fixed Limit at 50%.
• Polygraphy, Narco Analysis and Brain Mapping Tests
• CAA Challenge: Divergent Views
• FERA, 1973 And Transfer of Immovable Property by a Foreigner
• Doctrine of ‘Right to be Forgotten’ in Indian Law
• Doctrines on Ultra Vires and Removing the BASIS of the Judgment, in ED Director’s Tenure Extension Case (Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India)
• Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India – Mandamus (Given in a Case) Cannot be Annulled by Changing the Law
• Art. 370 – Turns the Constitution on Its Head

Religious issues

• Sabarimala Review: Supreme Court to Decide the Contours of Constitutional Morality
• Secularism and Art. 25 & 26 of the Indian Constitution
• Secularism & Freedom of Religion in Indian Panorama
• ‘Ban on Muslim Women to Enter Mosques, Unconstitutional’
• No Reservation to Muslim and Christian SCs/STs (Dalits) Why?
• Parsi Women – Excommunication for Marrying Outside
• Knanaya Endogamy & Constitution of India
• Sabarimala Review Petitions & Reference to 9-Judge Bench
• SABARIMALA REVIEW and Conflict in Findings between Shirur Mutt Case & Durgah Committee Case
• Ayodhya Disputes: M. Siddiq case –Pragmatic Verdict

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

• General
  • General Features
  • Bye Laws Fundamental
  • Effect of Registration of Societies and Incorporation of Clubs
  • Societies and Branches
• Property & Trust
  • Vesting of Property in Societies and Clubs
  • Incidents of Trust in Clubs and Societies
  • Juristic Personality of Societies and Clubs
  • Legal Personality of Trustees and Office Bearers
• Suits
  • Suits and Criminal Complaints By and Against a Company
  • Suits By or Against Societies, Clubs
  • Court’s Jurisdiction to Interfere in the Internal Affairs
  • How to Sue Societies, Clubs and Companies
  • Members of a Charitable Society which Runs a College are Tractable to Prevention of Corruption Act
• Amendment and Dissolution
  • Amendment of Bye laws of Societies and Clubs
  • Dissolution of Societies and Clubs
• Rights and Management
  • Rights & Liabilities of Members of Clubs and Societies
  • Individual Membership Rights in Societies & Clubs
  • Management – Powers of General Body and Governing Body
  • Expulsion of Members & Removal of Office-Bearers
  • Law on Meetings: An Overview
  • How to Prove Resolutions of a Company; Are Minutes Necessary?
• Election
  • Election & Challenge in Societies and Clubs
  • Court Interference in Election Process
• State Actions
  • State-Interference in Affairs of Societies & Clubs

Book No. 4: Common Law of TRUSTS in India

• General Principles
  • Classification of Trusts
  • What is Trust in Law?
  • Public & Private Trusts in India.
  • Trust is ‘An Obligation’; Not a Legal Entity
  • Indian Law Does Not Accept Salmond, as to Dual Ownership
  • Trusts and Trust Deeds
  • Lucknow Nagar Nigam v. Kohli Brothers Colour Lab, 2024-2 SCR 847
• Dedication and Vesting
  • Dedication of Property in Public Trusts
  • Vesting of Property in Trusts
  • Incidents of Trust in Clubs and Societies
  • What is Munambam Wakf Land Issue? If there is No Permanent Dedication, there will be No Wakf.
• Trustees and Management
  • Trustees and Administration of Public Trusts
  • Alienation of Public Trust Property
  • Extinction, Discharge, Revocation, etc. of Public Trusts
  • Charitable and Religious Trusts Act, 1920: Provisions as regards opinion, advice or direction of the Court.
• Breach of Trust
  • Breach of Trust and Removal of Trustees
• Suits by or against Trusts
  • Suits By or Against Trusts and Trustees
  • A Trust Cannot Be Made as a Party to a Litigation
  • Remedies Under Sec. 92 CPC
  • Operation Asha  v. Shelly Batra, a Landmark Judgment on Sec. 92, CPC – Critical Appreciation
  • Does Cheque-Case under Sec. 138, NI Act Lie Against a Trust?
• Law on Hindu Religious Endowments
  • Philosophy of Idol Worship
  • Is an Idol a Perpetual Minor?
  • Hindu Temples & Law of Trusts
  • Law of Mutts and Other Hindu Endowments
  • Shebaits & Mahants and Law of Trustees
• Temples, Gurudwaras, Churches and Mosques – General
  • Legal Personality of Temples, Gurudwaras, Churches and Mosques
• Constitutional Principles
  • Secularism and Art. 25 & 26 of the Indian Constitution
  • Secularism & Freedom of Religion in Indian Panorama
  • ‘Muslim Women: Ban to Enter Mosques, Is it Unconstitutional
  • Parsi Women Excommunication, Unconstitutional.
  • Knanaya Endogamy & Constitution of India
  • State & Court – Protectors of All Charities
  • Striking Down Legislation Relating to a Trust as Violative of Article 14 and 300A
• Ayodhya and Sabarimala Disputes
  • Ayodhya Disputes: M. Siddiq case – Pragmatic Verdict
  • Sabarimala Review Petitions & Reference to 9-Judge Bench
  • SABARIMALA REVIEW and Conflict in Findings between Shirur Mutt Case & Durgah Committee Case
• General
  • Public Trusts and (State) Endowments/Trusts Acts
  • Public Trusts and Indian Trusts Act – An Overview
  • Business by Charitable Trusts & Institutions

Proof by way of S. 63(4) Certificate is Optional.

Saji Koduvath, Advocate, Kottayam.

Introduction

Section 61 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, is a new provision. It was not in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Section 61, Adhiniyam says – the “admissibility” of evidence shall not be ‘denied’ merely on the ground that it is in electronic form. It is largely declaratory in nature. It binds the sections on electronic evidence to follow.

The Supreme Court decision in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, (2020) 7 SCC 1: AIR 2020 SC 4908, established a strict interpretation. It laid down (before promulgation of Adhiniyam, 2023) that the proof by the certificate under Section 65B (Section 63, Adhiniyam) was mandatory for admitting a computer output (copy) in evidence.

Drastic Legislative Change to Arjun Panditrao

Section 61, Adhiniyam made a drastic legislative change to the deliberation placed by Arjun Panditrao Khotkar. By virtue of Section 61, a computer output (i.e., a copy of an electronic record) is capable of being proved by any mode of proof recognised under the Adhiniyam, and is not restricted to proof solely through the certificate.

Section 61, Adhiniyam reads as under:

• “61. Electronic or digital record. Nothing in this Adhiniyam shall apply to deny the admissibility of an electronic or digital record in the evidence on the ground that it is an electronic or digital record and such record shall, subject to section 63, have the same legal effect, validity and enforceability as other document.”

Section 63(4) BSA reads as under:

• “(4) In any proceeding where it is desired to give a statement in evidence by virtue of this section, a certificate doing any of the following things shall be submitted along with the electronic record at each instance where it is being submitted for admission, namely:—
  • (a) identifying the electronic record containing the statement and describing the manner in which it was produced;
  • (b) … (c) ….“

Arjun Panditrao Overlooked Two Aspects

It appears that Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal overlooked two significant aspects:

• First, the deeming fiction in Section 65B (Section 63 of the Adhiniyam). It provides that a computer output (copy), upon compliance with the prescribed conditions, shall be deemed to be ALSO a document (original document).
• Secondly, the requirement of a certificate under sub-section (4) applies only “where it is desired to give a statement in evidence“. That is, Section 63(4) is attracted only where a party elects to prove a statement by resorting to the certificate.

Note 1: By virtue of Section 63(4), proof by way of a certificate –

• is confined to statements—that is, matters involving oral or written assertions—such as call detail records, bank statements, or statements of a witness recorded by the court directly into the ‘computer’,
• cannot be given as regards other electronic materials —such as photographs or video recordings stored in digital media (e.g., pen drives or CDs).

Note 2: Sections 61 to 63 deal only with the mode of proof required for the admissibility of computer outputs (copies); and they do not address the truth or correctness of their contents.

• Sec. 63(1) reads – “(….computer output) shall be deemed to be also a document, if the conditions mentioned in this section are satisfied …. and shall be admissible in any proceedings,….. without further proof or production of the original, as evidence or any contents of the original or of any fact stated therein of which direct evidence would be admissible.”

In appropriate cases, the court may, however, draw a presumption as to the truth or correctness of the contents.

Following decisions say – the photographs/videos speak for itself.

• Rajendra Sail v. M P High Court Bar Association, AIR 2005 SC 2473; 2005-6 SCC 109, Y.K. Sabharwal & Tarun Chatterjee, JJ. (Video)
• Tomaso Bruno v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2015) 7 SCC 178, R. Banumathi, Kurian Joseph, Anil R. Dave, JJ. (CCTV footage – best evidence)
• Swami Vivekanandnagar Co-op. Housing So. Ltd. v. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, 2022-3 GLH 122; 2022-4 GLR 2732 (Photograph)
• Madhavnagar Coop. Housing So. Ltd v. Joint Registrar, 2020-2 GLR 1437, J.B. Pardiwala, J. (Photograph)
• Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai v. Kogila, 2021-3 CTC 118; 2021-2 LW 28  (Photographs)
• Jetunben v. State of Gujarat, 2017-2 GLR 1640, J.B. Pardiwala, J. (Video)
• New India Assurance Company v. Mohd. Akram Bhat, 2016-2 JKJ 12 (Photograph)
• Shakuntala Bhadouria v. M. P. Griha Nirman Mandal, 2014-3 MPHT 62; 2014-1 MPJR 131 (DB) (Photographs)
• Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation v. Bhagirathi Ganapathy, 2010-2 CCR 1041 (Photograph)
• Pawan Kumar Agarwal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2007-6 ADJ 551 (Photographs)
• Raghuveer Singh v. Shiv Kumar Swami, 2006-3 RDD 1653; 2006-3 RLW(Raj) 2266; 2006-4 WLC 210 (Video)
• Taran Parkash Mohan Lal v. State, 1962 CrLJ 189 (P&H) (Photograph).

Arjun Panditrao: ‘Statements’ Embrace even Video and Photograph

In Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, the Supreme Court adopted an expansive interpretation of the expression “statements.” It pressed the requirement of a certificate under Section 65B as a general condition for the admissibility of all forms of computer output (copies).

In other words, the term “statement” was construed to embrace all forms of computer output, regardless of their nature—whether a video, a photograph, or any other digital record. However, such an expansive construction does not appear to be supported either by the text of the provision or by its underlying rationale and intended scope.

Section 63, Adhiniyam, now requires expert opinion or hash value certification over and above the Certificate laid down in the former provision under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.

UK Courts Did Not Expand the Phrase- “Desired to Give a Statement in Evidence“

The Civil Evidence Act, 1968, contained strict provisions governing computer evidence. Section 69 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) dealt with the admissibility of computer records in criminal proceedings.

• Note: It has been observed in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal that the provisions relating to electronic evidence in Indian law were, in substance, a “poor reproduction” of Section 5 of the 1968 UK Act.

Subsequently, the legal position in the UK underwent a significant change:

• Section 69 of the PACE Act, 1984, which imposed strict conditions for admitting electronic evidence in criminal cases, was abolished in 1999.
• The 1968 Act was replaced by the Civil Evidence Act 1995, which did not retain the earlier strict and technical requirements for electronic evidence.

Section 69(2) of the PACE Act read as under:

• “(2) Provision may be made by rules of court requiring that in any proceedings where it is desired to give a statement in evidence by virtue of this section such information concerning the statement as may be required by the rules shall be provided in such form and at such time as may be so required.”

The UK courts adhered to the textual limitation as regards the expression “statements” under both these Acts (when it existed); they did not expand the expression into a broader rule to enfold all forms of computer outputs (copies).

Present Position: After the repeal of the provisions relating to electronic evidence in the UK Acts, the UK courts have effectively reverted to the common law approach, under which electronic evidence is admitted based on general principles of relevance and reliability, rather than rigid or technical admissibility requirements.

US (Supreme Court of Georgia) Decision: In State v. Gilmore (2021), Supreme Court of Georgia, S20G1430, it held as under:

• “The conduct the video depicts does not constitute a statement”.

Also Read Article:

• Law on Electronic Evidence in India: A Comparative Analysis with Other Jurisdictions

Section 63, BSA Certificate – an Enabling Provision

Section 63, Adhiniyam enables a computer output (copy) to be treated as an original document—because of the words: “the computer output shall be deemed to be ALSO a document”. Therefore, an electronic document can be dealt with in accordance with the general principles applicable to documentary evidence in other provisions of the Evidence Act/ Adhiniyam. The certificate requirement (which allows marking a document without citing any witness) operates as an enabling or facilitative provision.

S. 61 is Enacted to Override Arjun Panditrao Khotkar

Section 61, BSA appears to be a legislative response to the rigid evidentiary stance established in Arjun Panditrao. Section 61 affirms that electronic evidence is not inherently inadmissible. By this section, the legislature has sought to:

• prevent exclusion of ‘electronic evidence’ on technical grounds,
• prove computer output (copy) otherwise than through a certificate (including oral evidence),
• align evidentiary rules with technological realities, and
• promote a more pragmatic approach.

This reflects a broader policy shift towards substantive justice over procedural rigidity.

The Supreme Court, in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, held –

• Proof by way of the certificate under Section 65B (Section 63, Adhiniyam) is mandatory to admit all or any computer output (copy) in evidence. 
• Section 65B is a ‘complete code’.

It is plain—the expression, “Nothing in this Adhiniyam shall apply to deny the admissibility of an electronic or digital record in the evidence on the ground that it is an electronic or digital record,” in Section 61 is enacted with a view to override the effect (certificate is mandatory) of the Supreme Court decision in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (otherwise, Section 61 would stand redundant).

In any event, Section 61 is worded with a view that it must be understood as a provision intended to secure alternative routes for admitting computer outputs (copies of electronic records); that is, otherwise than through the certificate contemplated under Section 63.

Does “Subject to S. 63” Suggest Admissibility on Certificate Alone

An argument may yet be possible against the construction stated above, based on the words “subject to Section 63” in Section 61 – that these words signify that the admissibility of a computer output depends upon the compulsory production of the certificate under Section 63.

This argument can be responded as under:

• The above interpretation (based on the words “subject to Section 63”) would defeat the very purpose of introducing the new provision (Section 61), which expressly states – “Nothing in this Adhiniyam shall apply to deny the admissibility of an electronic or digital record in the evidence on the ground that it is an electronic or digital record”.
• If the certificate under Section 63 were to remain as an inflexible rule, Section 61 would be rendered surplusage or otiose.

The harmonious construction would therefore be the following-

• Section 61 seeks to mitigate the rigidity of the earlier position (as reflected in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal), which was understood to require that a computer output be proved only through a certificate under Section 63(4). And, Section 61 permits proof through any recognised mode, while retaining Section 63 as one of the available methods of proof.

Viewed in this light, Section 61 can be seen –

• (i) as a legislative rebuttal to the strict and mandatory approach adopted in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, and
• (ii) as an attempt to ensure flexibility in the law relating to electronic evidence to align with global trends in jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom, the United States, and Canada.

Conclusion

Section 61 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, has been introduced with following clear and purposeful objectives:

• 1. To clarify that a computer output (i.e., a copy of an electronic record) can be proved by examining a competent witness, and not exclusively by producing a certificate under Section 63(4).
• 2. To make it clear that the procedural requirements under Section 63(4), such as furnishing a certificate and hash value without examining a witness, apply only when a party opts to rely on that mode of proof.

In essence, Section 61 restores flexibility by recognising alternative modes of proof, while reserving Section 63 for a specific, certificate-based method of admissibility.

End Notes

Videos Speak for Themselves – English Decision

It is laid down by the United Kingdom Court of Appeal in R v. Downey, [1995] 1 Cr.App.R. 547 CA and R v Blenkinsop, [1995] 1 Cr.App.R. 7, CA as regards a video –

• It “should be shown without comment, since it was for the jury to decide what they revealed.”

In R v. Downey, [1995] 1 Cr.App.R. 547, the principle accepted was that a video can “speak for itself” if properly proved. In this case, the same type of offence was committed at different places. Both were video recorded. The similarities were well identified. This led to an acceptance of the video by the court. It was found that the perpetrator of one of the crimes was likewise guilty of the other.

CCTV Footage – The Best Evidence

In Tomaso Bruno v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2015) 7 SCC 178, it is held that the CCTV footage is the best evidence (R. Banumathi, Kurian Joseph, Anil R. Dave, JJ.). It was a case concerning two Italian nationals. They were accused of the murder of another Italian national. The place of occurrence was a hotel room. All were on their trip to Varanasi. It was a case of circumstantial evidence. Symptoms of strangulation were absent in the medical reports. The defence was that the death occurred during their absence. They relied on the non-production of the digital evidence – CCTV footage and SIM card details. The Supreme Court set aside the conviction, pointing out –

• “The courts below have ignored the importance of best evidence, i.e. CCTV camera in the instant case.”
• “Notwithstanding the fact that the burden lies upon the accused to establish the defence plea of alibi in the facts and circumstances of the case, in our view, prosecution in possession of the best evidence– CCTV footage ought to have produced the same. In our considered view, it is a fit case to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution under Section 114 (g) of the Evidence Act that the prosecution withheld the same as it would be unfavourable to them had it been produced.”
• Note: Tomaso Bruno is overruled in Arjun Panditrao v. Kailash Kushanrao, on the point – whether computer output can be proved otherwise than invoking Section 65(4) of the Evidence Act; that is, under Section 65. In Tomaso Bruno it was held that secondary evidence of the contents of CCTV footage can also be led under Section 65 of the Evidence Act. Hence the CCTV footage was found admissible. In this regard Tomaso Bruno followed Navjot Sandhu. It is held in Arjun Panditrao that in the teeth of Anvar P. V., it could not have been said to be a correct statement of the law.

Photographs/Videos Speak for Themselves – Indian Decisions

In Rajendra Sail v. M P High Court Bar Association, AIR 2005 SC 2473; 2005-6 SCC 109; (Y.K. Sabharwal & Tarun Chatterjee, JJ.), it is held that the video exhibited in that case speaks for itself.

The Madras High Court in Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai v. Kogila,
2021-3 CTC 118; 2021-2 LW 28, while dealing with a suit for damages, filed by the legal heirs of a person who died due to the fall of an electrical pole on him, held as under:

• “Ex. A-10 photos and CD clearly show that the pole was heavily damaged. One could also to see the iron rods exposed and rusted. The cement concrete covering peeled off. The broken electrical pole on the ground with live wire seen in the photographs speak for itself.”

In Pawan Kumar Agarwal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2007-6 ADJ 551, Allahabad High Court held as under:.

• “The photographs of the constructions which were given at that point of time, show that it was semi finished construction, and the photographs appended with this Review Application, show that constructions have been completed and they speak in volumes for itself. Photographs, which have been filed as Annexure-16 to the writ petition, and the photographs, which have been annexed along with this Review Application clearly speak that the applicant had full knowledge of the pendency of the aforementioned writ petition and in spite of the same constructions were carried on and completed.”

Following decisions also say – the photographs/videos speak for itself.

• Swami Vivekanandnagar Co-op. Housing So. Ltd. v. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, 2022-3 GLH 122; 2022-4 GLR 2732 (Photograph)
• Madhavnagar Coop. Housing So. Ltd v. Joint Registrar, 2020-2 GLR 1437, J.B. Pardiwala, J. (Photograph)
• Jetunben v. State of Gujarat, 2017-2 GLR 1640, J.B. Pardiwala, J. (Video)
• New India Assurance Company v. Mohd. Akram Bhat, 2016-2 JKJ 12 (Photograph)
• Shakuntala Bhadouria v. M. P. Griha Nirman Mandal, 2014-3 MPHT 62; 2014-1 MPJR 131 (DB) (Photographs)
• Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation v. Bhagirathi Ganapathy, 2010-2 CCR 1041 (Photograph)
• Raghuveer Singh v. Shiv Kumar Swami, 2006-3 RDD 1653; 2006-3 RLW(Raj) 2266; 2006-4 WLC 210 (Video)
• Taran Parkash Mohan Lal v. State, 1962 CrLJ 189 (P&H) (Photograph)

Seizure Of Heroine Non-Production of CCTV Footage – Not Invite Acquittal

It is also relevant to note the following decision of the Madras High Court on seizure of the contraband, a commercial quantity of 1 kg. of Heroine, in Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau, Chennai v. Rasool Mydeen, 2023-1 MLJ(Cri) 19, which reads as under:

• “Though the prosecution could have also produced the CCTV footage from the Central Railway Station, the very absence by itself will not entitle the accused for acquittal. The principle that non-production of the best evidence in the case of the prosecution could not be employed, as the CCTV cannot be said to be a best evidence when the seizing officer and the witnesses have deposed and the mahazar is produced and the CCTV footage can at best be termed as a corroborative material. Therefore, the mere non-production thereof will not entitle the appellant for an acquittal.”

Read Similar Articles:

• Sakshya Adhiniyam (Literally) Mandates Hashing the Original. But the Established Jurisprudence Requires Hashing the Copy.
• Sec. 65B (Electronic Records) and Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
• Sec. 65B, Evidence Act: Arjun Paditrao Criticised.
• ‘STATEMENTS’ alone can be proved by ‘CERTIFICATE’ u/s. 65B
• Sec. 65B,  Evidence Act: Certificate forms
• “Nothing In This Adhiniyam Shall Apply To Deny The Admissibility” – New Provision (Sec. 61, BSA) to ensure that Sec. 65B (Sec. 63, BSA) is an enabling provision
• Photographs and Videos: Admissibility, and Proof Invoking Presumptions and ‘Silent Witness’ Theory
• How to Prove ‘Whatsap Messages’, ‘Facebook’ and ‘Website’ in Courts?

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