Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, as plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No.41 of 2012, sought a declaration of ownership and perpetual injunction against the respondent/defendant regarding two agricultural lands. The petitioner claimed that the respondent had sold the properties to one Khandu Undade via two registered sale deeds, and the petitioner later purchased them from Khandu Undade. The respondent admitted execution of the sale deeds but denied their contents and object. The petitioner filed an application to mark the two sale deeds with identification numbers, which the Trial Court rejected on 05.04.2023, reasoning that since the respondent denied the contents, the documents could not be marked. The petitioner challenged this order by way of writ petition. The High Court held that marking a document with an identification number is a procedural step to identify the document for reference and does not amount to proof of its contents. The court emphasized that even if execution is admitted but contents are denied, the document can still be marked, subject to proof of contents at trial as per the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The court set aside the Trial Court's order and directed that the two sale deeds be given identification numbers and exhibited, with the respondent being permitted to challenge their contents during trial. The court also clarified that the appropriate stage for marking documents is at the time of their production and admission into evidence.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Marking of Documents - Admission of Execution but Denial of Contents - When execution of a registered sale deed is admitted but its contents and object are denied, the document can still be marked with an identification number for the purpose of evidence, subject to proof of contents at trial. The court held that marking a document does not amount to proof of its contents; it only identifies the document for reference. (Paras 5-7) B) Evidence Act - Evidentiary Value of Marked Document - Identification Number - A document given an identification number in a suit is not automatically proved; its contents must still be proved in accordance with the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The court clarified that marking is a procedural step to facilitate reference, not a substitute for proof. (Paras 5-7) C) Civil Procedure - Stage of Marking Documents - Appropriate Stage - The appropriate stage to give identification to a document is at the time of its production and admission into evidence, not necessarily at the stage of framing of issues or before trial. The court held that the trial court erred in refusing to mark the sale deeds at the stage when they were sought to be exhibited. (Paras 5-7)
Issue of Consideration
What is the evidentiary value of a document given identification number in a suit when execution is admitted but contents and object are denied; what is the appropriate stage to give identification to a document.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the Trial Court's order dated 05.04.2023, and directed the Trial Court to give identification numbers to the two sale deeds and exhibit them. The respondent is at liberty to challenge the contents of the documents during trial.
Law Points
- Registered sale deed
- admission of execution
- denial of contents
- marking of document
- identification number
- evidentiary value
- stage of marking
- Civil Procedure Code
- Evidence Act
