Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sheeshandevi And Another vs Ram Mehar And Others on 20 November, 2013
Author: Paramjeet Singh
Bench: Paramjeet Singh
CR No.2319 of 2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CR No.2319 of 2012
Date of Decision:20.11.2013
Sheeshandevi and another
....Petitioners
Versus
Ram Mehar and others
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH
1) Whether reporters of the local papers may
be allowed to see the judgment?
2) To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3) Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest?
Present: Mr. Navneet Singh, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Ms. Geeta Sheoran, Advocate,
for respondents no.1 to 5.
****
PARAMJEET SINGH, J.
Instant civil revision has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 14.03.2012 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Sonepat whereby application moved by respondents no.1 to 5 seeking permission to prove photostat copy of unregistered Will dated 31.01.1978 allegedly executed by Smt.Attar Kaur daughter of Ratna, r/o village Kumaspur, by way of secondary evidence, has been allowed.
Kumar Parveen 2013.11.21 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CR No.2319 of 2012 2
Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts relevant for disposal of the present petition are to the effect that the petitioners filed suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction against the respondents challenging mutation no.2635 dated 25.05.1987 sanctioned on the basis of alleged unregistered Will dated 31.01.1978. During the pendency of suit, respondents no.1 to 5 filed application for leading secondary evidence in shape of photostat copy of unregistered Will dated 31.01.1978 allegedly executed by Smt. Attar Kaur during her life-time. It was mentioned in the application that the alleged unregistered Will was submitted by defendants no.1 to 3 to the revenue officials for sanction of mutation in their favour and mutation no.2635 was sanctioned on the basis of unregistered Will dated 31.01.1978. The said unregistered Will dated 31.01.1978 is not in the custody of defendants no.1 to 3 as the same was submitted to the revenue officials at the time of sanction of mutation. The said application was contested by the petitioners alleging that Smt. Attar Kaur never executed Will dated 31.01.1978 in favour of defendants no.1 to 3. The mutation no.2635 is a result of fraud and collusion with the revenue officials. Vide impugned order dated 14.03.2012, the trial Court after considering the pleadings allowed the application for leading secondary evidence. Hence, this revision petition.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently Kumar Parveen 2013.11.21 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CR No.2319 of 2012 3 contended that the alleged unregistered Will dated 31.01.1978 is a forged and fabricated document. The learned counsel has further contended that respondents no.1 to 5 are withholding the alleged unregistered Will dated 31.01.1978 and have failed to prove the existence and loss of the same. As such, photostat copy of the unregistered Will dated 31.01.1978 cannot be allowed to be produced as secondary evidence unless its authenticity is proved.
Per contra, learned counsel for respondents no.1 to 5 has vehemently contended that they are entitled to prove the unregistered Will dated 31.01.1978 by leading secondary evidence as original of the same has been lost. Factum with regard to the loss of unregistered Will dated 31.01.1978 need not be strictly proved but a foundation has to be laid which has been laid down in the application. The learned counsel has further contended that the unregistered Will dated 31.01.1978 was handed over to the revenue officials at the time of sanction of mutation, however, the same is not traceable, therefore, its loss is apparently proved. The impugned order dated 14.03.2012 is a well-reasoned order.
I have considered the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Before I deal with the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties, it would be appropriate to understand the basic idea behind the provisions of the Act relating to relevancy and evidentiary value of the documentary evidence in proving or disproving the claim. Since the power of documentary evidence in either proving or disproving Kumar Parveen 2013.11.21 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CR No.2319 of 2012 4 a claim is undeniable, therefore, determination of question of admissibility of document is crucial in any trial for it can change the course of entire trial and consequently fate of parties. The Act entails elaborate provisions relating to admissibility of documents. 'Best Evidence Rule' is a golden thread which runs through the provisions relating to admissibility of evidence, and when seen in context of documentary evidence such rule is enshrined in section 64 of the Act which provides that documents must be proved by primary evidence. The best evidence rule requires that if the contents of a writing are to be proved, the document must be proved. Some documents are self- authenticated such as ancient documents, recorded deeds and other documents over 30 years old. However other documents are required to be proved in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Needless to say that in cases where the document cannot be proved by primary evidence secondary evidence to prove the same is permissible under the Act. While the photostat copy of a document which is accurate reflection of original document is accepted as secondary evidence but it has to be shown that the photostat copy is authentic and accurate reproduction of the original. This is so because a photostat copy may be result of manipulation as it is susceptible to purposeful or accidental alteration or incorrect processing. The potential of fraud exists with all photostat copies as they can be altered through redacting information performing cut and paste job, transparency tape lift-of method, electronic editing etc. It is in this background that issue of admissibility of photostat copy of a Kumar Parveen 2013.11.21 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CR No.2319 of 2012 5 document is to be determined which can be done in better manner by analysing the paradigms of law on secondary evidence and the laws dealing with ancillary issue like admissibility of photostat document.
This issue has arisen before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts on various occasions and has been answered in different but mutually reconciliable ways based on facts of each case. Thus, it is desirable to figure out the basic principles enunciated by the courts in this regard with a view to answer following questions:
1. In what circumstances Photostat Copy can be tendered in evidence?
2. Whether photostat copy of a document comes within the meaning & definition of 'secondary evidence' as contained in section 63 of the Act?
Since, the questions are inextricably linked these will be answered together. However, before discussing the judgments on the issue, it would be appropriate to examine the relevant provisions of the Act reproduced below wherein in fact the answer to questions raised above lies:
Section 63. Secondary Evidence.- Secondary evidence means and includes--
(1) Certified copies given under the provisions hereinafter contained;
(2) Copies made from the original by mechanical processes which in themselves insure the accuracy of the copy, and copies compared with such copies;
(3) Copies made from or compared with the original;
(4) Counterparts of documents as against the parties who did not execute them;Kumar Parveen 2013.11.21 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CR No.2319 of 2012 6
(5) Oral accounts of the contents of a document given by some person who has himself seen it.
Section 65. Cases in which secondary evidence relating to documents may be given.- Secondary evidence may be given of the existence, condition or contents of a document in the following cases--
(a) when the original is shown or appears to be in the possession or power--
of the person against whom the document is sought to be proved, or of any person out of reach of, or not subject to, the process of the Court, or of any person legally bound to produce it, and when, after the notice mentioned in section 66, such person does not produce it;
(b) when the existence, condition or contents of the original have been proved to be admitted in writing by the person against whom it is proved or by his representative in interest;
(c) when the original has been destroyed or lost, or when the party offering evidence of its contents cannot, for any other reason not arising from his own default or neglect, produce it in reasonable time;
(d) when the original is of such a nature as not to be easily movable;
(e) when the original is a public document within the meaning of section 74;
(f) when the original is a document of which a certified copy is permitted by this Act, or by any other law in force in India to be given in evidence;
(g) when the originals consist of numerous Kumar Parveen 2013.11.21 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CR No.2319 of 2012 7 accounts or other documents which cannot conveniently be examined in Court and the fact to be proved is the general result of the whole collection.
In cases (a), (c) and (d), any secondary evidence of the contents of the document is admissible.
In case (b), the written admission is admissible. In case (e) or (f), a certified copy of the document, but no other kind of secondary evidence, is admissible. In case (g), evidence may be given as to the general result of the documents by any person who has examined them, and who is skilled in the examination of such documents.
Photostat copy of a document is generally sought to be admitted as secondary evidence by virtue of Section 63 (2) of the Act which provides that copies of original made from mechanical process ensuring in itself the accuracy of such copies are admissible as secondary evidence. While the photostat copies can be used for court purposes as evidential documentation but it is desirable that original be examined in all possible cases but when original is not available for reasons beyond one's control, photostat copy of a document may be examined to reach definite conclusions. However, before that the party seeking to produce the same must show that any of the circumstances mentioned in Section 65 of the Act exists warranting leading of secondary evidence. The controversy is generally with regard to cases falling under clauses (a) or (c) of Section 65 of the Act wherein the original is alleged to be lost or in the possession of opposite party. Kumar Parveen 2013.11.21 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CR No.2319 of 2012 8
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashok Dulichand v.
Madhavlal Dube 1975(4) SCC 664, while dealing with a case under clause (a) of Section 65 of the Act, upheld the decision of the High Court wherein it recorded a finding that the photostat copy did not appear to be above suspicion and could not be admitted. In arriving at this finding, the High Court considered the facts that there was no other material on the record (except the affidavit of appellant himself) to indicate that the original document was in the possession of respondent No. 1, the appellant failed to explain as to what were the circumstances under which the photostat copy was prepared and who was in possession of the original document at the time its photograph was taken; respondent No. 1 in his affidavit denied being in possession of or having anything to do with such document. Thus, it was held that no foundation had been laid by the appellant for leading secondary evidence in the shape of the photostat copy.
In Smt. J. Yashoda v. Smt. K. Shobha Rani 2007 (2) RCR (Civil) 840, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with issue of admissibility of photocopy of a document, original whereof was in possession of third party, came to a conclusion that since, the conditions mentioned in Section 65 of the Act were not fulfilled, photostat copy could not be allowed to be produced as secondary evidence. The court relied on Ashok Duli Chand's case (supra) and observed as under:
"The rule which is the most universal, namely that the best evidence the nature of the case will admit shall be produced, decides this objection that rule only means Kumar Parveen 2013.11.21 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CR No.2319 of 2012 9 that, so long as the higher or superior evidence is within your possession or may be reached by you, you shall give no inferior proof in relation to it. Section 65 deals with the proof of the contents of the documents tendered in evidence. In order to enable a party to produce secondary evidence it is necessary for the party to prove existence and execution of the original document. Under Section 64, documents are to be provided by primary evidence. Section 65, however permits secondary evidence to be given of the existence, condition or contents of documents under the circumstances mentioned. The conditions laid down in the said Section must be fulfilled before secondary evidence can be admitted. Secondary evidence of the contents of a document cannot be admitted without non-production of the original being first accounted for in such a manner as to bring it within one or other of the cases provided for in the Section."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in H. Siddiqui (Dead) by LRs. v. A. Ramalingam 2011 (2) RCR (Civil) 696 while dealing with Section 65 of the Act opined that though the said provision permits the parties to adduce secondary evidence, yet such a course is subject to a large number of limitations. In a case where the original documents are not produced at any time, nor has any factual foundation been laid for giving secondary evidence, it is not permissible for the court to allow a party to adduce secondary evidence. Thus, secondary evidence relating to the contents of a document is inadmissible, until the non-production of the original is accounted for, so as to bring it within one or other of the cases Kumar Parveen 2013.11.21 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CR No.2319 of 2012 10 provided for in the section. The secondary evidence must be authenticated by foundational evidence that the alleged copy is in fact a true copy of the original. It has been further held that mere admission of a document in evidence does not amount to its proof. Therefore, it is the obligation of the Court to decide the question of admissibility of a document in secondary evidence before making endorsement thereon.
Recently in U. Sree v. U. Srinivas 2013 (1) RCR (Civil) 883, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that mere denial by the party to produce the original document in whose possession it is stated to be does not lay down foundational facts for producing secondary evidence.
Likewise in cases falling under clause (c) of Section 65 of the Act wherein the original document is alleged to be lost or destroyed and a photostat copy is sought to be produced, the courts have cautioned against eager admissibility of such copies, specifically when it is lost or destroyed by the party in whom it created an enforceable right and who seeks to produce photostat copy of the same whereas, on the other hand, if a photostat copy is produced by a party who has no interest in manipulating it, it is generally admitted as secondary evidence.
While dealing with a case falling under clause (c) of Section 65 of the Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Benga Behra v. Braja Kishore Nanda 2007 (3) RCR (Civil) 240, wherein the Will was sought to be proved by way of secondary evidence, observed that it was obligatory on the part of first respondent to establish the loss of original will beyond all reasonable doubt. Since his testimony in this regard Kumar Parveen 2013.11.21 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CR No.2319 of 2012 11 remained uncorroborated, therefore, photocopy could not be admitted as secondary evidence. This Court in Mukesh Kumar alias Motta v. State of Haryana 2011 (1) RCR (Civil) 675 while relying on Division Bench judgment of Patna High Court in Chaudhuri Janardan Parida and Ors. v. Prandhan Das, AIR 1940 Patna 245 (DB) observed as under:
"Therefore, it may be noticed that to permit secondary evidence of such a document which has been destroyed by a person in whose possession it was and in whose favour it created an enforceable legal right or an obligation is normally not to be allowed as secondary evidence. The secondary evidence of such a document may be tampered with or changed and it would be against public policy to take a chance of running the risk of fraud being committed. Besides, the destruction of the instrument may make a party liable for a contract which had either not been agreed to or had been rescinded with the destruction of document. Therefore, secondary evidence in such circumstances where document itself has been destroyed by the person in whom it created an enforceable legal right or an obligation is normally not be allowed."
These observations were made in a case where the person seeking to produce the photostat copy could not explain that from where he got the photostat. A doubt was, thus, created on authenticity of the photostat copy. It was therefore observed:
"Photostat copies of documents can be prepared by manipulation and presented as original. Therefore, it would normally be unsafe on the mere asking to allow production of photostat copies as secondary evidence.Kumar Parveen 2013.11.21 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CR No.2319 of 2012 12
These are admittedly not certified copies of the original and it is not clear as to whether these are copies of the original"
Thus it may be said that before being admitted as secondary evidence being copies prepared by mechanical process, the authenticity of the Photostat document has to be established where photostat copy of a document is produced and there is no proof of its accuracy or of its having been compared with or its being true reproduction of the original, it cannot be considered as secondary evidence. In other words, photostat copy of a document is not admissible as secondary evidence unless proved to be genuine or is admitted by opposite party. Clause (2) of section 63 has two requirements first - the copies should be prepared from a mechanical process and second - the process should be such which in itself ensures accuracy of copy. While every Photostat copy is prepared by mechanical process however, it may or may not be accurate, therefore its admissibility as secondary evidence in view of clause (2) of Section 63 of the Act is subject to proof of the fact that it was a correct copy of original document. Similar observations have been made by this Court in Prem Lata v. Dwarka Prasad and Ors. CR No. 4913 decided on 23.08.2013 and Rajasthan Golden Transport Company v. LRs of Amrit Lal, 1998 (3) RCR (Civil) 95. Therefore, even when the permission to produce photostat copy of a document as secondary evidence is granted, it is open for the parties to argue about the probative value attached to it. When it is shown that photostat copy by itself is a suspicious document, it cannot be relied upon. Following observations Kumar Parveen 2013.11.21 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CR No.2319 of 2012 13 of the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in Kanchan Malhotra v. Yashvir Singh 1986(1) HLR 387 are relevant in this regard:
"Now, it may be stated that the photostat copy could not just be readily accepted as a reliable piece of secondary evidence unless there was clinching proof that (i) this photostat copy truly represented some original or its counter-foil, (ii) this photostat copy was prepared by mechanical process by someone at some particular place on any particular date and at any particular time and (iii) the original or its counter-foil from which this photostat copy was prepared, was produced at the relevant time by any person in custody of such document."
Since the aforesaid requirements were not met in that case, it was held that Photostat copy itself being suspicious document, no probative value could be attached to it.
The proposition of law laid down in aforesaid judgments provides answers to the questions raised above. Thus a Photostat copy of a document can be produced in evidence only when it is alleged and proved that the original was in existence and is lost or destroyed or is in possession of opposite party who failed to produce it or in any other circumstances mentioned in section 65 of the Act. These foundational facts, however, are to be proved by leading cogent evidence. As regards the question whether photostat copy of a document comes within the meaning & definition of 'secondary evidence' as contained in section 63 of the Act, there cannot be absolute answer because every photostat copy may not be accurate. For this purpose the probative value of the Kumar Parveen 2013.11.21 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CR No.2319 of 2012 14 Photostat copy has to be proved independently.
The principles culled out from the aforesaid discussion are summarized below:
a) Photostat copy of a document can be allowed to be produced only in absence of original document.
b) When a party seeks to produce Photostat copy it has to lay the foundational facts by proving that original document existed and is lost or is in possession of opposite party who failed to produce it. Mere assertion of the party is not sufficient to prove these foundational facts.
c) The objections as to non existence of such circumstances or non existence of foundational facts must be taken at earliest by the opposite party after the photostat copy is tendered in evidence.
d) When the opposite party raises objection as to authenticity of the Photostat copy its authenticity has to be determined as every copy made from a mechanical process may not be accurate. Both the requirements of clause (2) of section 63 are to be satisfied.
e) Allowing production of Photostat copy in evidence does not amount to its proof. Its probative value has to be proved and assessed independently. It has to be shown that it was made from original at particular place and time.
f) In cases where the Photostat copy is itself suspicious it should not be relied upon. Unless the court is satisfied that the Photostat copy is genuine and accurate it should not be read in evidence.Kumar Parveen 2013.11.21 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CR No.2319 of 2012 15
g) The accuracy of photostat copy shall be established on oath to the satisfaction of court by the person who prepared such copy or who can speak of its accuracy.
The abovesaid principles must be followed by the courts while admitting a photostat copy as secondary evidence and assessing its probative value.
In the case in hand, the photostat copy of the alleged unregistered Will dated 31.01.1978 is sought to be produced by way of secondary evidence. It is pertinent to mention here that mutation has already been sanctioned on the basis of alleged unregistered Will dated 31.01.1978. The trial Court after considering the explanation given by respondent no.1 to 5 regarding loss of the alleged unregistered Will dated 31.01.1978 has allowed them to produce photostat copy of the same in secondary evidence.
In view of above, there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order in so far as it allows respondent no.1 to 5 to lead secondary evidence in respect of alleged unregistered Will dated 31.01.1978. Respondent no.1 to 5 would be afforded an opportunity to lead evidence to prove existence and loss of the alleged unregistered Will dated 31.01.1978 and the petitioners shall also be afforded an opportunity to rebut it. Thereafter, the trial Court shall decide as to whether photostat copy of the alleged unregistered Will dated 31.01.1978 should be admitted as secondary evidence. Its probative value shall be independently assessed by the trial Court in accordance Kumar Parveen 2013.11.21 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh CR No.2319 of 2012 16 with the settled principles of law.
Disposed of in the above mentioned terms.
(Paramjeet Singh) Judge November 20, 2013 parveen kumar Kumar Parveen 2013.11.21 17:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh