Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal

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