Supreme Court: Witnesses To Sale Deed/Will Need Not Necessarily Know Its Contents

The main issue is whether Ratankuwarbai, who was an illiterate

lady and suffering from cancer, has executed these documents or

not. The defendants examined Antar Singh and Laxman Singh who are

witnesses to all the three documents. As far as Laxman Singh is

concerned, he clearly stated that at the time of registration of

the sale-deeds and the Will, the sub-Registrar concerned had read

out the subject matter of the three documents in short to

Ratankuwarbai. He also heard the sub-Registrar at that time. It

has been contended that both these witnesses have stated that they

were not aware of the contents of the documents, when they signed

as witnesses. The witnesses need not necessarily know what is

contained in the documents. Furthermore, when these witnesses

state that the sub-Registrar had told the gist of the documents to

the deceased then they become aware of the nature of the documents

at the time of registration thereon. In fact both Antar Singh and

Laxman Singh had deposed with regard to transfer of the

consideration.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal No(s). 8827/2011

HEMKUNWAR BAI Vs  SUMERSINGH

Dated:September 25, 2019.

Print Page

Whether any document can be exhibited if its maker has admitted his signature even if contents of document is not proved?

In the case of Mrs. Cynthia Martin Wd/o A.V. Martin v/s. Prembehari s/o. Makhanlal Yadu & Another reported in MANU/MH/0074/1998 : 1998 (1) Bom. C.R. 631, it is observed in paragraph 12 that:-

By the said letter, it was informed by the competent authority that the house was not situated in the slum area. Shri De submitted that the only witness, who has been examined, has not been able to give any details regarding the said letter and mere proof of the signature would not amount to the proof of the contents of the letter. It is true that mere proof of the signature could not prove the contents of the letter. However, that is not a case here. The letter is clear enough, and once the letter is proved by proving the signature of the maker thereof, there would hardly be any reason to doubt the same regarding the veracity of the contents therein.

24. In the case of Grasim Industries Limited (supra), following observation made in paragraph 6:-

In our opinion, when a person signs a document, there is a presumption, unless there is proof of force or fraud, that he has read the document properly and understood it and only then he has affixed his signatures thereon, otherwise no signature on a document can ever be accepted.

... Hence, it is difficult to accept the contention of the respondent while admitting that the document, Ext. D-8 bears his signatures that it was signed under some mistake.

25. In the case of Byramjee Jeejeebhoy Private Limited (supra), the following observation was made:-

The learned trial Judge curiously declined to exhibit the document and marked it for identification s Ex. X/6 on the ground that even if the signature of the vendor on the document is proved, unless the contents are proved, the document cannot be admitted. We are afraid we cannot share the view of the learned trial Judge. The document stands proved as soon as the fact of execution is proved and it is wholly irrelevant whether the contents are proved.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Writ Petition No. 3190 of 2011 with Civil Application No. 956 of 2011

Decided On: 14.11.2011

Dinesh Vasantrai Bhuta  Vs.  Vasantben Harvilas Jani

Print Page

When a party can be permitted to adduce secondary evidence?

 On perusal of the records and the impugned order and taking note of the contentions of the learned Counsel, I find that in view of the fact that the petitioner had given a notice to the respondents to produce the originals of the said documents and as the respondents have not produced the originals, the petitioner is entitled to lead secondary evidence. Apart from that, in the pleadings referred to herein above, the existence of the said documents has not been disputed as contemplated in Section 65(b) of the Evidence Act, 1872. As such, the petitioner is entitled to lead secondary evidence in respect of the measurement sheets and bills referred to at serial no.2 in the list of documents. For the aforesaid reasons the learned Judge was not justified to pass the impugned order refusing leave to the petitioner to lead secondary evidence. Consequently, the impugned order passed by the learned Judge cannot be sustained and deserves to be quashed and set aside.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

Writ Petition No. 475 of 2011

Decided On: 02.03.2012

Appellants: Eslie Noronha
Vs.
Respondent: J. Lambert Almeida

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
F.M. Reis, J.

 Citation: 2012(4)ALLMR141

Print Page

How to ascertain probative value of contents of admissible documents ?

 In Madan Mohan Singh & Ors. v. Rajni Kant & Anr., AIR 2010 SC 2933, this Court examined a case as a court of fifth instance. The statutory authorities and the High Court has determined the issues taking into consideration a large number of documents including electoral rolls and school leaving certificates and held that such documents were admissible in evidence. This Court examined the documents and contents thereof and reached the conclusion that if the contents of the said documents are examined making mere arithmetical exercise it would lead not only to improbabilities and impossibilities but also to absurdity. This Court examined the probative value of the contents of the said documents and came to the conclusion that Smt. Shakuntala, second wife of the father of the contesting parties therein had given birth to the first child two years prior to her own birth. The second child was born when she was 6 years of age; the third child was born at the age of 8 years; the fourth child was born at the age of 10 years; and she gave birth to the fifth child when she was 12 years of age.

Supreme Court of India

H. Siddiqui (D) By Lr vs A. Ramalingam on 4 March, 2011

Bench: P. Sathasivam, B.S. Chauhan

Reportable

Citation;AIR2011SC1492, 2011(2)ALLMR(SC)938, 2011 2 AWC1704SC, 2011(5)BomCR673, (SCSuppl)2011(4)CHN105, 2011(268)ELT436(S.C.), 2011GLH(1)586, 2011GLH(586)1, (2011)2GLR1429(SC), JT2011(3)SC522, 2011(2)KCCR1398, 2011-4-LW805, 2011(4)MhLJ88(SC), (2011)4MLJ887(SC), 2011(2)RCR(Civil)385, 2011(3)SCALE290, (2011)4SCC240, [2011]5SCR587

Print Page