2020 (2) TMI 1676 - SC - Indian Laws

Evidentiary value of school leaving certificate - Whether the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below suffer from illegality on account of improper consideration of Ex.P1, i.e., school leaving certificate? - HELD THAT - School Leaving Certificate has been produced by the plaintiff and said to be signed by his father. The person who has recorded the date of birth in the School Register or the person who proves the signature of his father in the School Transfer Certificate has not been examined. No official from the School nor any person has proved the signatures of his father on such certificate. Apart from the self-serving statement, there is no evidence to show that the entry of the date of birth was made by the official in-charge, which alone would make it admissible as evidence under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. However, the High Court has not found any other evidence to prove the truthfulness of the Certificate (Ex.P/1). In Birad Mal Singhvi 1988 (8) TMI 440 - SUPREME COURT , the Date of Birth was sought to be proved by the Principal of the School. Though, the Principal could not produce the admission form in original or its copy. It was held therein that the entries contained in the school s register are relevant and admissible but have no evidentiary value for the purpose of proof of date of birth of the candidates. A vital piece of evidence was missing as no evidence was placed before the court to show on whose information the date of birth was recorded in the aforesaid document. It was held that The date of birth mentioned in the scholars' register has no evidentiary value unless the person who made the entry or who gave the date of birth is examined. The entry contained in the admission form or in the scholar's register must be shown to be made on the basis of information given by the parents or a person having special knowledge about the date of birth of the person concerned. In Madan Mohan Singh , 2010 (8) TMI 1168 - SUPREME COURT this Court held that the entries made in the official record may be admissible under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 but the Court has a right to examine their probative value. Both the courts, the trial court and the learned First Appellate Court, have examined the School Leaving Certificate and returned a finding that the date of birth does not stand proved from such certificate. May be the High Court could have taken a different view acting as a trial court but once, two courts have returned a finding which is not based upon any misreading of material documents, nor is recorded against any provision of law, and neither can it be said that any judge acting judicially and reasonably could not have reached such a finding, then, the High Court cannot be said to have erred. Resultantly, no substantial question of law arose for consideration before the High Court. The High Court erred in law in interfering with the finding of fact recorded by the trial court as affirmed by the First Appellate Court. The findings of fact cannot be interfered with in a second appeal unless, the findings are perverse. The High Court could not have interfered with the findings of the fact - the High Court committed grave error in law in setting aside the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the First Appellate Court and the Trial Court - Appeal allowed.

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the plaintiff was a minor in 1963.
2. Whether the plaintiff separated from the joint family and executed a release deed dated 15.06.1963.
3. The validity and admissibility of the School Leaving Certificate (Ex.P/1) as proof of age.
4. The High Court's interference with the concurrent findings of the lower courts.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Whether the plaintiff was a minor in 1963.

The plaintiff claimed he was a minor at the time of his father's death in 1963 and produced a School Leaving Certificate (Ex.P/1) to support this. However, the trial court found that the plaintiff was not a minor based on the registered release deed (Ex.D/1), which stated his age as 22 years, and his marriage deed (Ex.D/2), which indicated he was 24 years old at the time of marriage. The plaintiff failed to produce any official from the school or the Head Master who issued the certificate to validate its contents.

Issue 2: Whether the plaintiff separated from the joint family and executed a release deed dated 15.06.1963.

The trial court found that the plaintiff had executed a release deed on 15th June 1963, relinquishing all his rights in the joint family property for a consideration of Rs. 5,000/-. The plaintiff admitted to signing the release deed and living separately from his family since then. The trial court concluded that the release deed was valid, as the plaintiff did not plead any fraud, coercion, or undue influence.

Issue 3: The validity and admissibility of the School Leaving Certificate (Ex.P/1) as proof of age.

The High Court, in the second appeal, accepted the School Leaving Certificate (Ex.P/1) as valid proof of age under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and declared the release deed null and void. However, the Supreme Court found that the plaintiff failed to prove the authenticity of the School Leaving Certificate as no official from the school was examined to validate the entries. The Supreme Court cited several judgments, including Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit and Madan Mohan Singh v. Rajni Kant, emphasizing that the entries in the school register must be proved by someone with special knowledge of the facts recorded.

Issue 4: The High Court's interference with the concurrent findings of the lower courts.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in law by interfering with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial court and the First Appellate Court. The High Court's interference was not justified as it did not meet the criteria for substantial questions of law as laid out in various precedents, including Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Anjuman-E-Ismail Madris-Un-Niswan and Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari. The Supreme Court emphasized that concurrent findings of fact should not be interfered with unless they are perverse or based on no evidence.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment, and dismissed the plaintiff's suit. The findings of the trial court and the First Appellate Court were upheld, concluding that the plaintiff was not a minor at the time of executing the release deed, and the release deed was valid. The School Leaving Certificate (Ex.P/1) was not considered reliable evidence to prove the plaintiff's age. The High Court's interference with the concurrent findings of fact was deemed erroneous.

← Previous Next →