Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(v) Ex. PW­1/1 is an extract of a parivar register and Mark PW­3/A is copy of the parivar register. A parivar register is a public register/record maintained by a public officer. In the extract Ex.PW­1/1 and the register Mark PW­3/A, there is an entry as to the year of birth of the plaintiff. The year of birth of the plaintiff is a fact in issue in the instant case. Thus, as per Section 35 of the Evidence Act, the entry as to the plaintiff's year of birth in the extract Ex.PW­1/1 and register Mark PW­3/A is itself a relevant fact.

(xv) Since the entries in the register Mark PW­3/A had been copied from a previous register, the same could not have been proved in the absence of proof of the said previous register. Moreover, there may be certain corrections and interlineations in the original (previous) register which may throw some light with regard to the authenticity of the entry as to the plaintiff's year of birth in the parivar register. Production of the extract of the entry, in the form of Ex.PW­1/1, or a copy of the parivar register prepared manually, in the form of Mark PW­3/A, cannot dispel the doubt as to the entries in the parivar register. (xvi) In his cross­examination, PW­3, however, admitted that he had not brought the original (previous) register on the basis of which entries had been made in the register brought by him copy whereof is Mark PW­3/A. Further, he stated, "The entries made in the register brought by me can be verified with the original (previous) register. I cannot bring the previous register on the basis of which entries were made in the register brought by me today. The original (previous) register is in the custody of the District Panchayat Raj Officer at District Headquarter, Maha Maya Nagar. The said register can be summoned from the District Panchayat Raj Officer." However, despite the statement of PW­3 to the aforesaid effect, no steps were taken by the plaintiff to summon the original/previous register from the District Panchayat Raj Officer.

(xvii) Thus, the parivar register Mark PW­3/A has not been duly proved. Accordingly, the certified copy of the extract of the parivar register Ex.PW­1/1 has also not been proved by the plaintiff.

(xviii)Even otherwise, it is a settled proposition of law that mere proving a document does not prove its contents and a document by itself is not an evidence of the facts stated therein. In paragraph 11 the judgment in Fitzee Ltd. v. Brilliant Tutorials Pvt. Ltd. (supra), cited on behalf of the plaintiff himself, it has been held, "... The fact in issue before the Court cannot be proved merely by proving the signature and handwriting on a document since the document, by itself, does not constitute truthfulness of its contents. The truthfulness or otherwise of the contents of a document can be proved only by legally admissible evidence, i.e. the evidence of a person who is in a position to vouchsafe for the truthfulness of those contents." (emphasis supplied). The truth or otherwise of the entry as to the date of birth of the plaintiff in the parivar register could be proved by admissible evidence i.e. by the evidence of those persons who could vouchsafe for the truth of the said entry. The date of birth mentioned in the parivar register has no evidentiary value unless the person who made the entry or who gave the date of birth is examined. Reliance is placed on paragraph 14 of Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit (supra), wherein it was held as under:

C. Though the aforesaid decisions had been passed in the context of government servants, the principles laid down therein apply with equal force in cases such as the present inasmuch as the reasoning thereof holds good in case of private employments as well.
D. The plaintiff has not produced copy of the parivar register or extract thereof claimed to have been submitted with the defendant No.1 at the time of joining the service on the ground that there used to be no copies in those times. He has not produced any acknowledgment issued on behalf of the defendants to prove that he had in fact submitted the said or any other document regarding his date of birth. He has not produced any certificate of date of birth issued by any municipal authority, or a school certificate, or even a ration card, or other document. He has not examined his parent(s), relative(s) or neighbour(s) etc. to prove his date of birth. He has also failed to furnish any medical evidence in support of his age. All that the plaintiff has relied on is the extract of the parivar register Ex.PW­1/1 and the copy of the parivar register Mark PW­3/A, which, in the considered opinion of this Court, as already observed above, do not constitute proof, let alone clinching and irrefutable evidence, of the date (year) of birth of the plaintiff.