MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Punjab and Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Allowing Secondary Evidence in Land Ownership Dispute

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, presided over by Justice Alka Sarin, overturned an order that allowed the presentation of secondary evidence in a contentious land ownership case. The judgment, delivered on 4th July 2023, emphasized the need to establish the existence and loss of the original document before admitting secondary evidence.

The case, Phool Kumari v. Satnarain & Others, revolved around a dispute concerning joint ownership of a piece of land. The plaintiff-petitioner, Phool Kumari, had filed a lawsuit seeking a declaration of joint ownership, while the defendants claimed entitlement under a will executed in 1988. However, the defendants were unable to produce the original will and instead sought to rely on a photocopy.

Justice Alka Sarin, in her ruling, highlighted the legal requirement to prove the existence and execution of the original document before admitting secondary evidence. Quoting from the judgment, she stated, "Secondary evidence cannot be admitted without establishing the existence and loss of the original document." The court further emphasized that mere assertions of possession by one of the defendants were insufficient to meet this requirement.

The decision by the High Court effectively set aside the earlier order allowing the secondary evidence. The court concluded that the absence of evidence regarding the existence of the original will rendered the order permitting the presentation of secondary evidence as erroneous.

This ruling highlights the importance of adhering to the evidentiary requirements when seeking to present secondary evidence. It establishes a clear precedent that the original document's existence and loss must be proven before considering the admissibility of secondary evidence.

The judgment referred to several relevant legal precedents, including Smt. J. Yashoda v. Smt. K. Shobha Rani (2007) and M/s Parkash Chand Kapoor Chand v. Inderjit Singh & Ors. (2006), which emphasized the primacy of the original document and the need for its proper establishment.

The High Court's decision serves as a reminder of the crucial role evidence plays in legal proceedings, safeguarding the integrity and fairness of the justice system.

Date of Decision: 4th July 2023

Phool Kumari vs Satnarain & Others 

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/phool-kumari-Vs-Satnarain-04-July-23-PH-HC.pdf"]

Latest Legal News