Source: Calcutta High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Calcutta High Court in the matter of Minati Bhadra & Ors. v. Dilip Kr. Bhadra & Ors., have held that when documentary evidence is available the oral testimony of witness is not sufficient to rebut its probative value.

What was the Background of Minati Bhadra & Ors. v. Dilip Kr. Bhadra & Ors. Case?

• In this case, the plaintiff filed the suit for partition stating that his mother (Chhabi Rani Bhadra was the original owner of the suit property.
• She died intestate and was survived by her husband and son who thus acquired the property by inheritance.
• The husband remarried and had two more children and passed away leaving behind surviving defendants as his legal heir.
• The Trial Court dismissed the suit for partition.
• The plaintiff challenged the judgement of learned Trial Court before the Learned First Appellate Court who reversed the judgement of learned Trial Court and held that plaintiff has right interest and possession over the suit property and is entitled to decree for partition in respect of his share.
• Aggrieved thereby the defendants preferred the appeal before the Calcutta High Court which was later dismissed by the Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• A single bench of Justice Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury held that when documentary evidence is available, the oral testimony of a witness would not be able to rebut its probative value.
• The Court noted that there was a discrepancy between oral testimony and documentary evidence in this case, in relation to Section 35 and Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA).
• The Court further held that the oral testimony of witness is not sufficient to outweigh the evidentiary value which unerringly indicates the relationship between father and son. Therefore, the court does not find any reason to interfere with the judgement impugned.

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions Involved in it?

Section 35, IEA

• This section deals with the relevancy of entry in public record made in the performance of duty.
• It states that an entry in any public or other official book, register or record or an electronic record, stating a fact in issue or relevant fact, and made by a public servant in the discharge of his official duty, or by any other person in performance of a duty specially enjoined by the law of the country in which such book, register or record or an electronic record, is kept, is itself a relevant fact.
• The Supreme Court in Babloo Pasi Vs. State of Jharkhand (2008), held that in order to render a document admissible under Section 35, three conditions have to be satisfied, namely:
  • Entry that is relied on must be one in a public or other official book, register or record.
  • It must be an entry stating a fact in issue or a relevant fact.
  • It must be made by a public servant in discharge of his official duties, or in performance of his duty especially enjoined by law.

Section 50, IEA

• This section deals with opinion on relationships, when relevant.
• It states that when the Court has to form an opinion as to the relationship of one person to another, the opinion, expressed by conduct, as to the existence of such relationship, of any person who, as a member of the family or otherwise, has special means of knowledge on the subject, is a relevant fact.
• Provided that such opinion shall not be sufficient to prove a marriage in proceedings under the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 or in prosecutions under sections 494, 495, 497 or 498 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
• The essential requirements of this section are-
  • There must be a case where the court has to form an opinion as to the relationship of one person to another.
  • In such a case, the opinion expressed by conduct as to the existence of such a relationship is a relevant fact.
  • But the person whose opinion expressed by conduct is relevant must be a person who as a member of the family or otherwise has special means of knowledge on the particular subject of a relationship.