The trial court decreed the suit observing that as the
parties had deposed that the original power of attorney was
not in their possession, question of laying any further factual
foundation could not arise. Further, the trial court took note
of the fact that the respondent herein has specifically denied
execution of power of attorney authorising his brother, R.
Viswanathan to alienate the suit property, but brushed aside
the same observing that it was not necessary for the
appellant-plaintiff to call upon the defendant to produce the
original power of attorney on the ground that the photocopy
of the power of attorney was shown to the respondent herein
in his cross-examination and he had admitted his signature.
Thus, it could be inferred that it is the copy of the power of
parties had deposed that the original power of attorney was
not in their possession, question of laying any further factual
foundation could not arise. Further, the trial court took note
of the fact that the respondent herein has specifically denied
execution of power of attorney authorising his brother, R.
Viswanathan to alienate the suit property, but brushed aside
the same observing that it was not necessary for the
appellant-plaintiff to call upon the defendant to produce the
original power of attorney on the ground that the photocopy
of the power of attorney was shown to the respondent herein
in his cross-examination and he had admitted his signature.
Thus, it could be inferred that it is the copy of the power of
attorney executed by the respondent in favour of his brother
(R. Viswanathan, the second defendant in the suit) and
therefore, there was a specific admission by the respondent
having executed such document. So it was evident that the
respondent had authorised the second defendant to alienate
the suit property.
In our humble opinion, the trial court could not proceed
in such an unwarranted manner for the reason that the
respondent had merely admitted his signature on the
photocopy of the power of attorney and did not admit the
contents thereof. More so, the court should have borne in
mind that admissibility of a document or contents thereof
may not necessarily lead to drawing any inference unless the
contents thereof have some probative value.
In State of Bihar v. Radha Krishna Singh this Court
considered the issue in respect of admissibility of documents
or contents thereof and held as under:
“40. … Admissibility of a document is one thing and its
probative value quite another—these two aspects cannot
be combined. A document may be admissible and yet may
not carry any conviction and weight or its probative value
may be nil.”
16. In Madan Mohan Singh v. Rajni Kant this Court
examined a case as a court of fifth instance. The statutory
authorities and the High Court had 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 firstchild 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.
17. Therefore, it is the duty of the court to examine whether
the documents produced in the court or contents thereof have
any probative value”.
(R. Viswanathan, the second defendant in the suit) and
therefore, there was a specific admission by the respondent
having executed such document. So it was evident that the
respondent had authorised the second defendant to alienate
the suit property.
In our humble opinion, the trial court could not proceed
in such an unwarranted manner for the reason that the
respondent had merely admitted his signature on the
photocopy of the power of attorney and did not admit the
contents thereof. More so, the court should have borne in
mind that admissibility of a document or contents thereof
may not necessarily lead to drawing any inference unless the
contents thereof have some probative value.
In State of Bihar v. Radha Krishna Singh this Court
considered the issue in respect of admissibility of documents
or contents thereof and held as under:
“40. … Admissibility of a document is one thing and its
probative value quite another—these two aspects cannot
be combined. A document may be admissible and yet may
not carry any conviction and weight or its probative value
may be nil.”
16. In Madan Mohan Singh v. Rajni Kant this Court
examined a case as a court of fifth instance. The statutory
authorities and the High Court had 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 firstchild 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.
17. Therefore, it is the duty of the court to examine whether
the documents produced in the court or contents thereof have
any probative value”.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1148 OF 2010
Nandkishore Lalbhai Mehta V New Era Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Citation;(2015) 9 SCC 755
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1148 OF 2010
Nandkishore Lalbhai Mehta V New Era Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Citation;(2015) 9 SCC 755
