SMT. J. YASHODA versus SMT. K. SHOBHA RANI

Citation: [2007] 5 S.C.R. 367 · Decided: 19-04-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-P' 
SMT. J. YASHODA 
A 
.··"' 
v. 
SMT. K. SHOBHA RANI 
APRIL 19, 2007 
[DR.ARiflTPASAYAT ANDLOKESHWARSINGHPANTA,JJ.] 
B 
_ __, 
Indian Evidence Act, 1872; Ss. 63 and 65(a): 
-.: 
Secondary evidence-Photocopies of documents-Admissibility in 
evidence-Requirement of-Held: Secondary evidence admissible only in the c 
absence of primary evidence when proper explanation of its absence is 
given-ft is necessary for the party to prove existence and execution of the 
original document-Thus, photocopies of documents could be admitted in 
evidence as secondary evidence subject to fulfillment of certain conditions as 
laid down under Section 65-Since the conditions are not satisfied, the D 
documents in question cannot be admitted as secondary evidence. 
-. 
'fhe question which arose for consideration in this appeal was as to 
whether photocopies of the documents could be received as an evidence under 
the head 'secondary evidence' without complying with the requirement of 
Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act. 
E 
Appellant contended that the High Court could not have ignored the 
mandatory requirements as contemplated under Section 63 of the Act more 
specifically when the Section provides that when the copies made from the 
evidence can be adduced as secondary evidence; and that the mandatory 
prescriptions in Section 65(a) of the Act have been lost sight of. 
F 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.I. Secondary evidence, as a general rule, is admissible only 
in the absence of primary evidence. If the original itself is found to be 
inadmissible through failure of the party, who files it to prove it to b valid, the G 
same party is not entitled to introduce secondary evidence of its contents. 
-~ 
[Para 7] [370-E] 
1.2. Essentially, secondary evidence is an evidence which may be given 
367 
H 
368 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 5 S.C.R. 
A in the absence of that better evidence which law requires to be given first, 
when a proper explanation of its absence is given. The definition in Section 
63 of the Evidence Act is exhaustive as the Section declares that secondary 
evidence "means and includes" and then follow the five kinds of secondary 
evidence. !Para 8] [370-F] 
B 
1.3. In order to enable a party to product secondary evidence it is 
necessary for the party to prove existence and execution of the original 
document. U oder Section 64 of the Act, documents are to be provided by 
primary evidence. Section 65 of the Act, however, permits secondary evidence 
to be given of the existence, condition or contents of documents under the 
c circumstances .mentioned. The conditions laid down in the said Section must 
be fulfilled before secondary evidence can be admitted. Secondary evidence of 
the contents of a document cannot be !ldmitted without non-production of the 
original being first accounted for in such a manner as to bring it within one 
or other of the cases provided for in the Section. [Para 9] (370-H; 371-A, B] 
D 
Ashok Dulichand v. Madahavlal Dube and Anr., [I975J 4 sec 664, 
relied on. 
2. Only when conditions prescribed in Section 65 of th el 0 Act are 
satisfied, documents can be admitted as secondary evidence. In the instant 
case, clause (a) of Section 65 of the Act has not been satisfied. Therefore, the 
E High Court's order does not suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference. 
[Para 10] (372-C] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2060 of2000. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.02.2005 of the High Court of 
F Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Civil Revision Petition No. 5946 
of2003. 
Bina Madhavan (for M/s. Lawyer's Knit & Co.), for the Appellant. 
M.N. Rao, Prakash Rao and Promila for the Respondent. 
G 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. I. Leave granted. 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a learned 
· H. Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court allowing the civil revision 
,._ 
_,. 
}--
,... 
~ 
~ 
J. YASHODAv. K. SHOBHARANl[PASAYAT,J.] 
369 
~ ' 
_\. 
petition filed. Challenge in the said petition was to the order dated 3 .11.2003 A 
in OS No. 30 of 1999 on the file of learned First Additional Chief Judge, City 
Civil Court, Secunderabad wherein document Exh. B-1 to B-8 were marked 
and taken as secondary evidence. The challenge in the civil revision was that 
the aforesaid documents could not have been marked and taken as secondary 
evidence since they are photo copies. 
3. Learned Single Judge held th

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.