9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Ownership of the suit plot - Whether the suit plot formed part of T.S. 272A and T.S. 273B - Admissibility of certified copies of sale deed and gift deed Ownership of the Suit Plot: The respondent filed a suit claiming ownership of a portion of land as his absolute property. The trial court found in favor of the respondent, stating that the sale deed from the sons of the original landowners to another party for family necessity did not confer title to the subsequent purchasers. The trial court also invoked the presumption under Section 90 of the Evidence Act for a document over 30 years old. The appellant did not object to the admission of the sale deed or challenge the execution of the gift deed, leading to the trial court decreeing the suit in favor of the respondent. Suit Plot Inclusion in T.S. 272A and T.S. 273B: The appellant claimed that the suit plot was a separate property, not part of the larger land parcels. The trial court found that the suit plot was indeed part of the larger land holdings based on the sale deed and gift deed presented as evidence. The lower appellate court, however, ruled against the respondent, stating that the certified copies of the sale deed and gift deed were inadmissible secondary evidence as the original sale deed was not produced. This decision was appealed by the respondent to the High Court. Admissibility of Certified Copies: The High Court considered the admissibility of the certified copies of the sale deed and gift deed. It concluded that the trial court was correct in invoking the presumption under Section 90 of the Evidence Act for the certified copies, given that they were over 30 years old. The appellant argued that the secondary evidence was inadmissible due to the lack of foundation for its admissibility. However, the Supreme Court held that objections to the mode of proof must be raised before a document is marked as an exhibit and admitted to the record. As the appellant did not object during the trial, the sale deed and gift deed were considered admissible, leading to the dismissal of the civil appeal. In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the civil appeal, stating that objections to the mode of proof must be raised in a timely manner and cannot be raised after a document has been admitted as evidence. The Court emphasized the importance of procedural fairness and the necessity of timely objections to the admissibility of evidence during trial proceedings.
|
