The Supreme Courtroom has put aside the sale undertaken on the energy of a photocopied Energy of Legal professional, noting {that a} photocopy of a doc, being secondary proof, will not be proof except it falls underneath the circumstances set out in Part 65 of the Proof Act.
Part 65 of the Proof Act permits the manufacturing of secondary proof (copies, oral accounts) when the unique doc can’t be produced underneath Part 64. This is applicable if the unique doc/proof is misplaced, destroyed, rests in possession of an antagonistic get together, or is a public doc.
A bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and SVN Bhatti heard the case the place the core controversy centred on the character and scope of authority granted underneath a PoA executed by the plaintiff in 1998.
Whereas the plaintiff contended that she had issued solely a restricted PoA authorising administration of the property, and had expressly struck out clauses allowing sale, the defendants claimed that the plaintiff had executed a common PoA empowering her brother to alienate the property.
The defendants relied on a notarised photocopy of the alleged common PoA to justify the sale in favour of the brothers’ in-laws. The Trial Courtroom accepted the plaintiff’s case and declared the sale deeds void. This was reversed by the First Appellate Courtroom, which upheld the validity of the PoA and the sale. The Kerala Excessive Courtroom, nevertheless, restored the Trial Courtroom’s decree within the second attraction, prompting the defendants to attraction to the Supreme Courtroom.
Affirming the Excessive Courtroom’s determination, the judgment authored by Justice Bhatti stated that admitting a doc as secondary proof doesn’t mechanically show its contents except the secondary proof is authenticated by foundational proof displaying that the alleged copy is, the truth is, a real copy of the unique.
“As an example, if a celebration needs to introduce a photostat copy, they need to clarify the circumstances underneath which the copy was ready and who possessed the unique on the time the {photograph} was taken.”, the court docket defined.
Nevertheless, when the get together fails to show the unique proof, the reliance on its secondary proof is barred.
“Secondary proof is inadmissible till the non-production of the unique is accounted for in a fashion that brings the case throughout the particular exceptions supplied in Part 65. If the unique itself is discovered to be inadmissible by failure of the get together who information it to show it to be legitimate, the identical get together will not be entitled to introduce secondary proof of its contents.”, the court docket stated.
The Courtroom noticed that the introduction of secondary proof is a two-step course of, whereby, first, the get together should set up the authorized proper to steer secondary proof, and second, they need to show the contents of the paperwork by that proof. The dual necessities are conjunctive.
Additionally, the mere admission of a doc or making it an exhibit doesn’t dispense with the requirement of proving it in accordance with the regulation. The court docket has an obligation to look at the probative worth of the doc and resolve the query of admissibility earlier than making an endorsement on the secondary proof. If the foundational details, such because the lack of the unique or the reason for its non-production, aren’t established, the court docket can not legally enable the get together to adduce secondary proof.
Making use of the regulation, the Courtroom noticed:
“A photocopy of a doc isn’t any proof except the identical is proved by following the process set out. Counting on Exh. B-2, the First Appellate Courtroom acted on inadmissible proof and accepted the existence of energy to alienate. Exh. B-2/photocopy isn’t any proof, and the inaccurate reliance on no proof, has been rightly corrected by the Excessive Courtroom by the impugned judgment. The Excessive Courtroom has thought of the misreading of proof by the Appellate Courtroom and, by making use of the proper ideas of regulation, allowed the second attraction.”
Accordingly, the attraction was dismissed.
Trigger Title: THARAMMEL PEETHAMBARAN AND ANOTHER VERSUS T. USHAKRISHNAN AND ANOTHER
Quotation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 128
Click on right here to obtain judgment
Look:
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Pijush Kanti Roy, Sr. Adv.(argued by) Mr. Dileep Poolakkot, Adv. Mr. Harshad V. Hameed, AOR Mrs. Ashly Harshad, Adv. Dr. Arunender Thakur, Adv. Mr. Mahabir Singh, Adv. Ms. Khushboo Sharma, Adv. Mr. Anshul Saharan, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Siddharth Bhatnagar, Sr. Adv.(argued by) Mrs. Manjula Rao, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nitin Sangra, Adv. Mr. Nadeem Afroz, Adv. Mr. Riju Ghosh, Adv. Mr. Upmanyu Tewari, AOR
