Supreme Court of India
BABU SINGH & ORS.versusRAM SAHAI @ RAM SINGH
- Citation
- 2008 INSC 559
- Decided
- 30 April 2008
- Disposal
- Case Allowed
- Bench
- S B SINHA
Holding
A will must be attested by two witnesses and proof of execution requires examination of at least one attesting witness; Section 69 applies only after diligent attempts to compel attendance of attesting witnesses, which were absent here, so the will was not proved.
Summary
The Supreme Court examined whether a will dated 25‑9‑1981 could be proved under Sections 68 and 69 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 63(1)(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The will was attested by two witnesses, one of whom had died and the other, Harnek Singh, was alive but was not examined because the plaintiff failed to serve a summons or otherwise compel his attendance. The Court held that proof of execution requires examination of at least one attesting witness and that Section 69 can be invoked only when attesting witnesses cannot be found or compelled despite diligent effort. Since the plaintiff did not attempt to serve or enforce process against the surviving witness, Section 69 was inapplicable and the will could not be proved. Consequently, the lower courts’ findings in favour of the respondent were set aside and the appeal was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether a will must be attested by two witnesses under Section 68 of the Evidence Act.
- Whether proof of execution of a will can be established by examining only one attesting witness.
- Whether Section 69 of the Evidence Act applies when one attesting witness is dead and the other is not examined.
- Whether the plaintiff’s failure to serve summons or seek court process defeats the application of Section 69.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedures. Order 16 Rule 10
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872s. 68, s. 69, s. 71
- Indian Succession Act, 1925s. 63(1)(c)
- Transfer of Property Act, 1882s. 3
Subjects
WillAttestationExecutionEvidence ActSection 68Section 69Indian Succession ActBurden of proofSummonsCivil ProcedureProbateUndue influenceSuspicious circumstances
Judgment
[2008] 7 S.C.R. 250
A BABU SINGH & ORS.
v
RAM SAHAI @ RAM SINGH
(Civil Appeal No. 3124 of 2008)
APRIL 30, 2008
B
[S.B. SINHA AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.)
Evidence Act, 1872:
ss. 68 and 69 - Proof of execution and attestation - Held:
c Will is required to be attested by two witnesses - Ordinarily
both must be examined to prove execution of Will but if one of
them is not available, then it is imperative to examine the other
- It is the duty of the person seeking declaration about validity
of Will to dispel the surrounding circumstances - Indian
D Succession Act, 1925 - s.63(1)(c).
s. 69 - Applicability of - Held: Applicable where attesting
witness is either dead or out of jurisdiction of Court or is kept
out of way by adverse party or cannot be traced despite diligent
search - On facts, propounder did not make any attempt to
E serve summons upon the sole surviving attesting witness -
Statement by counsel or respondent that he had been won
over by opposite party cannot be taken to consideration for
applying s. 69 of the Act.
F A Will was executed in favour of respondent '
bequeathing right, title and interest in the suit property.
Appellant claimed themselves to be owner and in
possession of the suit property.
The trial Court held that Will was not proved in terms
G of s.68 of Evidence Act as plaintiff-respondent was bound
to examine at least one attesting witnesses to prove the t'
..
execution of the Will. One of the attesting witnesses
expired before he could be examined as a witness and
other attesting witness 'H' was alive and was given up by
H 250
BABU SINGH & ORS. v. RAM SAHAI @ RAM SINGH 251
~
plaintiff on the plea that he was won over by the other A
party. First Appellate Court and High Court however held
in favour of respondent by relying upon the evidence of
the deed writer who was also known to the testator.
In appeal to this court, appellant contended that in
the facts and circumstances of the case, s.69 of the B
Evidence Act cannot be said to have any application.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1. Indisputably a Will is to be attested by two
witnesses in terms of s.68 of the Evidence Act. The c
requirement of s.63(1)(c) of the Indian Succession Act is
to be complied with for proving a Will. S.68 of the Act
mandates proof by attesting witnesses of not merely of
execution but also attestation by two witnesses. Thus,
not only the execution of Will must be proved but actually D
_..
execution must be attested by at least two witnesses.
Attestation of execution of Will must be in conformity with
the provisions of s.3 of the Transfer of Property Act.
'Attestation' and 'execution' connote two different
meanings. (Para 10] (257-C-E] E
1.2. In terms of s. 68 of the Act, although it is not
necessary to call more than one attesting witness to
,, prove due execution of a Will but that would not mean
that an attested document shall be proved by the evidence
of one attesting witness only and two or more attesting F
,, " witnesses need not be examined at all. 5.68 of the Act lays
down the mode of proof. It envisages the necessity of more
,. evidence than mere attestation as the words 'at least' have
...... been used therein. When genuineness of a Will is in
question, apart from execution and attestation of Will, it is G
also the duty of a person seeking declaration about the
" "t validity of the Will to dispel the surrounding suspicious
- circumstances existing if any. Thus, in addition to proving
the execution of the Will by examining the attesting
witnesses, the propounder is also required to lead H
252 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
,
(2008) 7 S.C.R.
A evidence to explain the surrounding suspicious
circumstances, if any. Proof of execution of the Will would,
depend thereupon. The Court, while granting probate of
the Will, must take into consideration all relevant factors.
It must be found that the Will was product of a free will.
B The testator must have full knowledge and understanding
as regards the contents thereof. For the said purpose, the
background facts may also be taken note of. Where,
however, a plea of undue influence was taken, the onus
wherefor would be on the objector and not on the offender.
[Paras 11,12] [257-F-H; 258-A-C]
c
Savithri & Ors. v. Karthyayani Amma & Ors. JT (2007)
12 SC 248 - relied on.
1.3. S.69 would apply, in a case where the attesting
witness is either dead or out of the jurisdiction of the court
D or kept out of the way by the adverse party or cannot be
traced despite diligent search. Only in that event, the Will
may be proved in the manner indicated in s.69, i.e., by
examining witnesses who were able to prove the
handwriting of the testator or executant. The burden of
E proof then may be shifted to others. Whereas, however, a
Will ordinarily must be proved keeping in view the
provisions of s.63 of the Indian Succession Act and s. 68
of the Act, in the event the ingredients thereof, are
brought on record, strict proof of execution and
F attestation stands relaxed. However, signature and '
handwriting, as contemplated i1' s.69, must be proved. ....
[Paras 14, 15] [258-E-H]
1.4. Indisputably, one of the attesting witnesses was
dead. The summons were taken out against the said 'H'. •
G Admittedly, it was not served. There is nothing on record .A
to show that any step was taken to compel his ,. •
appearance as a witness. Respondent in. his deposition
did not make any statement that the said 'H' had been won
over by the appellant. He did not say that despite service -
H of summons, 'H' did not appear as a witness. In his cross-
BABU SINGH & ORS. v. RAM SAHA! @ RAM SINGH 253
examination, he alleged that he and 'H' were enimically A
disposed of towards each other even prior to 1991 and in
fact "since the time of his ancestors". that they are not on
speaking terms. A suggestion was given to him that in
fact 'H'had come to Court on that day to which he denied
his knowledge. It is only in answer to a question in cross- B
examination, he stated that he did not intend to examine
the said 'H'. 'H' may be a person who had been won over
by the appellant but there must be some evidence brought
on records in that behalf. The Trial Court rightly rejected
the bare statement made by the respondent that the other C
attesting witness had gone out of the country.
Respondent himself did not say so on oath. He did not
examine any other witness. He did not make any attempt
to serve another summons upon him. No process was
asked for to be served by the court. A statement was made
0
by a counsel before the appellate court. That statement is
said to have been made before the appellate court by the
respondent himself on 29.10.1999. Such a statement by a
counsel or by the respondent himself cannot be taken
into consideration for the purpose of invoking s.69 of the
Evidence Act. A purported statement, not as a witness but E
through the counsel, cannot be said to be an evidence.
Trial Judge did not accept such a statement. In that view
of the matter, the first appellate Court committed a serious
legal error. [Para 16) [259-A-H; 260-A)
F
Amal Sankar Sen & Ors. v. The Dacca Co-operative
Housing Society Ltd. (in liquidation) by Inspector Liquidator,
Co- operative Society, Dacca AIR 32 (1945) Calcutta 350;
Hare Krishna Panigrahi v. Jogneswar Panda and Ors. AIR
1939 Cal. 688; Doraiswami v. Rathnammal and Ors. AIR 1978 G
Mad. 78; Apoline D' Souza v. John D' Souza (2007) 7 SCC
• i .
225; B. Venkatamuni v. C.J. Ayodhya Ram Singh & Ors.
(2006) 13 sec 449 - referred to.
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3124
of 2008. H
254 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008) 7 S.C.R.
~ '
A From the Order dated 11.11.2005 of the High Court of ....
Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in R.S.A. No. 3595/2002.
Viraj Dattar, Vineet Jhanji and Jyoti Mendiratta for the "'
Appellants.
B N. Shoba, Sri Ram J. Thalapathy and V. Adhimoolam for
the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted.
c 2. Interpretation of Section 69 of the Evidence Act, 1872
i~ in question in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and
order dated 11.11.2005 passed by the High Court of Punjab &
Haryana.
3. One Ram Bux executed a Will dated 25.9.1981 in favour
D
of the respondent herein bequeathing his right, title and interest
in the property in question.
Appellants claimed themselves to be the owner and in
possession of the suit property which is a shop, as a co-sharer
E to the extent of 6 marlas out of the land measuring 3 kanal and
one maria appertaining to Khasra No.53 situated in the area of
Chhoti Haveli, Tehsil and District Ropar.
4. Learned Trial Court, inter alia, raised the following
issues:
F
"1. Whether the plaintiff is owner of the suit property?
OPP
2. Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to the possession
of the shop in question? OPP
G
xxx xxx xxx
' •
6. Whether the defendants are entitled to the counter
claim to the effect that they are owner of the shop in
question and co-sharer to the extent of 0-6 marlas of
H the land fully detailed in the counter claim? OPD"
BABU SINGH & ORS. v. RAM SAHAI @ RAM SINGH 255
[S.B. SINHA, J.]
, "
We need not go into other issues between the parties. A
5. The learned Trial Judge, although opined that the suit
was bad for non-impleading Karam Kaur and Dalwinder Kaur,
daughters of the testator as parties to the suit, proceeded to
consider the validity of the Will in order to avoid any possibility
I
of remand by the Trial Court, stating : B
"The plaintiff was duty bound to examine at least one
attesting witnesses to prove the execution of the Will Ex.Pl
2. It has come in evidence that Lambardar Mohan Singh
expired before he could be examined as a witness. Other c
attesting witnesses House was alive and had been given
up by the plaintiff on the plea that he had been won over
by the other party. Thus, Will Ex.P/2 has not been proved
according to Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act."
6. The learned Judge, however, noticed that one of the D
attesting witnesses, namely, Harnek Singh@ House, according
to the learned counsel for the plaintiff, had gone outside India
and another attesting witness, namely, Lambardar Mohan Singh
being dead, the Will must be held to have been duly proved. It
was held: E
"Though there is no plausible and cogent evidence on
record to show that House had gone to foreign country.
But even if for argument sake the plea of the Plaintiff is
taken to be correct. Even in that eventuality the Sub-
Registrar has only identified the signatures on the will to F
be that of Mohan Singh as attesting witness. Though the
Plaintiff also examined PW-9 Davinder Parshad
Handwriting expert who examined the signatures of the
executant on the Will Ex.P/2 and the sale deed but he took
all these signatures as standard signatures. The sale G
deeds, however, have not been proved by the Plaintiff to
~
-l contain the signatures of Ram Bux. Expert compared these
standard signatures with the questioned signatures on
the family settlement. Therefore, there is nothing on record
to suggest that Handwriting expert took the signatures of H
256 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 7 S.C.R.
.. '
A will as questioned and compared the same with admitted
or proved signatures of Ram Bux. Therefore, the Plaintiff
miserably failed to show that the Will Ex.P/2 contained the
signatures of Ram Bux. Consequently, the Plaintiff failed
to prove the due execution of the Will Ex.P/2, as per the
B requirement of Section 69 of the Indian Evidence Act.
In result, the Plaintiff failed to show that deceased Ram
Bux executed legal and valid will dated 25.9.1981 in his
favour. In view of this finding I need not dilate on the
argument of the learned counsel for the defendants that
c the Will Ex.P/2 was surrounded by suspicious
circumstanced."
7. An appeal was preferred thereagainst.
The First Appellate Court, however, on the said issue
D held:
"Now so far as the Will Ex.P/2 is concerned, it was allegedly
executed by Ram Bux Singh son of Daya Ram on
25.9.1981 and was duly got registered in the office of the
Sub-Registrar, R\)par, on the same date. It is evident that
E this Will was attested by two witnesses, namely, Harnek
Singh son of Ram Prakash and Mohan Singh, Lamberdar.
So far as Mohan Singh Lamberdar is concerned, he had
since died on 4.7.1983 vide death Certificate Ex.P3 and
for this reason he could not be brought in the witness box.
F However, Harnek Singh son of Ram Parkash is alive but
it is stated by Shri A.L. Verma, counsel for the Plaintiff as
well as Plaintiff himself on 29.10.1999 that Harnek Singh
witness has joined hands with the opposite party and
moreover, he has intentionally left to a foreign country. For
G this reason, Harnek Singh son of Ram Parkash also could
not be examined by him. Now the question arises whether
the statement of the deed-writer who also knew Ram Bux ' •
Singh can be relied upon or not and whether he can be
treated as an attesting witness or not."
H
~
' 'I
BABU SINGH & ORS. v. RAM SAHA! @ RAM SINGH 257
[S.S. SINHA, J.]
8. The High Court by reason of the impugned judgment A
dismissed the Second Appeal preferred by the appellant herein
opining that no substantial question of law arose for its
consideration.
9. Mr. Viraj Datar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the appellant, submitted that in the facts and circumstances of 8
this case, Section 69 of the Evidence Act cannot be said to
have any application whatsoever and, thus, the High Court
committed a serious error in passing the impugned judgment.
10. Indisputably a Will is to be attested by two witnesses
in terms of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act (Act).
c
Indisputably, the requirement of Section 63(1 )(c) of the Indian
Succession Act is required for to be complied with for proving a
will. Section 68 of the Act mandates proof by attesting witnesses
of not merely of execution but also attestation by two witnesses.
D
That is to say, not only the execution of Will must be proved but
actually execution must be attested by at least two witnesses.
Attestation must of execution of Will be in conformity with the
provisions of Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act.
'Attestation' and 'execution' connote two different E
meanings. Some documents do not require attestation. Some
documents are required by law to be attested.
11. In terms of Section 68 of the Act, although it is not
-~
necessary to call more than one attesting witness to.prove due
execution of a Will but that would not mean that an attested F
document shall be proved by the evidence of one attesting
witness only and two or more attesting witnesses need not be
examined at all. Section 68 of the Act lays down the mode of
proof. It envisages the necessity of more evidence than mere
attestation as the words 'at least' have been used therein. When G
" ~
genuineness of a Will is in question, apart from execution and
attestation of Will, it is also the duty of a person seeking
declaration about the validity of the Will to dispel the surrounding
suspicious circumstances existing if any. Thus, in addition to
proving the execution of the Will by examining the attesting H
258 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 7 S.C.R. .,, ' .....
.......
A witnesses, the propounder is also required to lead evidence to
explain the surrounding suspicious circumstances, if any. Proof
of execution of the Will would, inter alia, depend thereupon.
12. The Court, while granting probate of the will, must take
into consideration all relevant factors. It must be found that the
8 will was product of a free will. The testator must have full
knowledge and understanding as regards the contents thereof.
For the said purpose, the background facts may also be taken
note of. Where, however, a plea of undue influence was taken,
the onus wherefor would be on the objector and not on the
c offender. {See Savithri & Ors. v. Karthyayani Amma & Ors. [JT
(2007) 12 SC 248]}
13. Section 69 of the Act reads, thus :
"Section 69-Proof where no attesting witness
D found-If no such attesting witness can be found, or if the
document purports to have been executed in the United
Kingdom, it must be proved that the attestation of one
attesting witness at least is in his handwriting, and that the
signature of the person executing the documents is in the
E handwriting of that person."
14. It would apply, inter alia, in a case where the attesting
witness is either dead or out of the jurisdiction of the court or
kept out of the way by the adverse party or cannot be traced
despite diligent search. Only in that event, the Will may be proved
F in the manner indicated in Section 69, i.e., by examining
witnesses who were able to prove the handwriting of the testator
or executant. The burden of proof then may be shifted to others.
15. Whereas, however, a Will ordinarily must be proved
• ..
keeping in view the provisions of Section 63 of the Indian
G
Succession Act and Section 68 of the Act, in the event the
ingredients thereof, as noticed hereinbefore, are brought on
record, strict proof of execution and attestation stands relaxed.
However, signature and handwriting, as contemplated in Section
69, must be proved.
H
BABU SINGH & ORS. v. RAM SAHAI @ RAM SINGH
' ,, [S.B. SINHA, J.]
259
16. Indisputably, one of the attesting witnesses was dead. A
Our attention, however, has been drawn to the fact that a
purported summons were taken out against the said Harnek
Singh. Admittedly, it was not served. There is nothing on record
to show that any step was taken to compel his appearance as a
witness. Ram Sahai in his deposition did not make any statement B
that the said Harnek Singh had been won over by the appellant.
He did not say that despite service of summons, Harnek Singh
did not appear as a witness. In his cross-examination, he alleged
that he and Harnek Singh were enimically disposed of towards
each other even prior to 1991 and in fact "since the time of his c
ancestors". It was furthermore alleged that they are not on
speaking terms. A suggestion was given to him that in fact Harnek
Singh had come to Court on that day to which he denied his
knowledge. It is only in answer to a question in cross-
examination, he stated that he did not intend to examine the
.A D
said Harnek Singh.
Harnek Singh may be a person who had been won over
by the appellant but there must be some evidence brought on
records in that behalf. The learned Trial Judge, in our opinion,
rightly rejected the bare statement made by the learned counsel E
for the plaintiff that the other attesting witness had gone out of
the country. Respondent himself did not say so on oath. He did
not examine any other witness.
He did not make any attempt to serve another summons
upon him. No process was asked for to be served by the court. F
Interestingly, a statement was made by a counsel before the
appellate court. That statement is said to have been made
before the appellate court by the plaintiff himself on 29.10.1999.
We are at a loss to understand how such a statement by a
~· .. counsel or by the respondent himself was taken into G
consideration for the purpose of invoking Section 69 of the
Indian Evidence Act. A purported statement, not as a witness
but through the counsel, cannot be said to be an evidence. We
have noticed hereinbefore that learned Trial Judge did not accept
such a statement. In that view of the matter, the first appellate H
260 .SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 7 S.C.R.
~·
A Court, in our opinion, committed a serious legal error.
17. In Hare Krishna Panigrahi Vs. Jogneswar Panda and
Others [AIR 1939 Cal. 688], B.K. Mukherjea, J. referring to
Section 71 stated the law thus :
B "This presupposes in my opinion that the witness is actually
produced before the Court and then if he denies execution
or his memory fails or if he refuses to prove or turns hostile,
other evidence can be admitted to prove execution. In the
case referred to above the witness was actually before
c the Court and afterwards turned hostile. In this case
however, the witness was not before the Court at all and
no question of denying or failing to recollect the execution
of the document did at all arise. The plaintiff simply took
out a summons as against this witness and nothing further
was done later on. In a case like this where the attesting
D A
witnesses are not before the Court, S. 71, Evidence Act,
has in my opinion, got no application. In such cases it is
the duty of the plaintiff to exhaust all the processes of the
Court in order to compel the attendance of any one of the
attesting witnesses and when the production of such
E witnesses is not possible either legally or physically, the
plaintiff can avail himself of the provisions of S. 69,
E\(idence Act."
18: lri Amal Sankar Sen & Ors. v. The Dacca Co-operative
F Housing Society Ltd. (in liquidation) by Inspector Liquidator,
Co-operative Society, Dacca [(A.l.R (32) 1945 Calcutta 350], it
was held:
"As we have already stated, that proposition of law cannot
be challenged at this date. In order that S.69, Evidence
G Act, may be applied, mere taking out of the summons or
the service of summons upon an attesting witness or the .. .,,
mere taking out of warrant against him is not sufficient. It
is only when the witness does not appear even after all the
process under Order 16 Rule 10, which the Court
H considered to be fit and proper had been exhausted that
BABU SINGH & ORS. v. RAM SAHAI @ RAM SINGH 261
[S.S. SINHA, J.]
the foundation will be laid for the application of Section · A
69, Evidence Act. The party, namely, the plaintiff, must
move the Court for process under Order 16, Rule 10, Civil
P.C., when a witness summoned by him has failed to obey
the summons but when the plaintiff does move the Court
l
but the Court refuses the process asked for we do not see B
. why Section 69, Evidence Act, cannot be invoked. The
other view would place the plaintiff in an impossible
position when the witness is an attesting witness to the
document on which he has brought the suit, and the Court
refuses coercive processes contemplated in Order 16 C
Rule 10 Civil P.C."
19. In Doraiswami Vs. Rathnammal and others [(AIR 1978
Mad. 78], the same principle was reiterated, stating :
"11. D. 2. 2 merely identifies the signature of Palani
0
Navithari found in Ex. B-1 as that of his father. The mere
fact that the signature of Palani Navithan is proved, in our
opinion, is not sufficient to prove the due execution of the
will. The evidence of this witness is relied on for proving.
the signature of one of the attesting witnesses and thus
enable the third defendant to adduce secondary evidence E
regarding the due execution of the will. The evidence of
D.W. 2 w"ill be relevant only for the purposes of S. 69 of the
Evidence Act. Section 69 will come into play only when no ·
attesting witness can be found. In this case, as already
stated, an attesting witness D.W. 4 has been examined F
and he has denied his attestation of the document.
Therefore S. 69 can have no application. The evidence of
D.W. 2, therefore, even if accepted, will not help the third
defendant."
20. We may notice that in Apoline D' Souza v. John D' . G
Souza ((2007) 7 SCC 225], this Court held that the question as
to whether due attestation has been established or not will
depend on the fact situation obtaining in each case. Therein, it
was held:
H
262 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 7 S.C.R.
A "13. Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872 provides for the
mode and manner in which execution of the will is to be
proved. Proof of attestation of the will is a mandatory
requirement. Attestation is sought to be proved by PW 2
only. Both the daughters of the testatrix were nuns. No
B property, therefore, could be bequeathed in their favour. In
fact one of them had expired long back. Relation of the
testatrix with the respondent admittedly was very cordial.
The appellant before us has not been able to prove that
she had been staying with the testatrix since 1986 and
c only on that account she was made a beneficiary thereof.
The will was full of suspicious circumstances. PW 2
categorically stated that the will was drafted before her
coming to the residence of the testatrix and she had only
proved her signature as a witness to the execution of the
will but the document was a handwritten one. The original
D
will is typed in Kannada, although the blanks were filled up
with English letters. There is no evidence to show that the
contents of the will were read over and explained to the
testatrix. PW 2 was not known to her. Why was she called
and who called her to attest the will is shrouded in mystery.
E Her evidence is not at all satisfactory in regard to the
proper frame of mind of the testatrix. There were several
cuttings and overwritings also in the will."
In the aforementioned situation, the Will was said to have
F not been proved.
This Court therein noticed, inter alia, the decision of B.
Venkatamuni v. C.J. Ayodhya Ram Singh & Ors. ((2006) 13
sec 449] wherein the law has been laid down in the following
terms:
G
"25. The Division Bench of the High Court was, with
respect, thus, entirely wrong in proceeding on the premise
that compliance of legal formalities as regards proof of
the Will would sub-serve the purpose and the suspicious
circumstances surrounding the execution thereof is not of
H
BABU SINGH & ORS. v. RAM SAHAI @ RAM SINGH 263
[S.B. SINHA, J.]
much significance." A
21. We generally agree with the aforementioned view of
the Calcutta High Court. Assuming, however, that even taking
the course of Order XVI ofthe Code of Civil Procedure might
not be necessary, what was imperative was a statement on oath
made by the plaintiff. A deposition of the plaintiff is a witness B
before the Court and not the statement through a counsel across
the Bar. Such a statement across the Bar cannot be a substitute
for evidence warranting invocation of Section 69 of the Evidence
Act. .
c
22. For the reasons, aforementioned, the impugned
judgment of the High Court as also the First Court of Appeal
cannot be sustained. They are set aside accordingly. Appe?I is
allowed with no order as to costs.
D.G. Appeal allowed. D
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Will"Sign in to search