Can an objection to the mode and manner in which a document was admitted be raised for the first time in second appeal?

No. The issue of admissibility of a document can be raised at any stage of the proceedings, but the mode and manner in which it was admitted has to be taken before the Trial Court at the time of its tender and before it is marked as an exhibit, otherwise it would amount to a waiver of the objection. Here the title document was marked and exhibited without any objection, so the objection that it was marked through a witness holding no Power of Attorney could not be permitted to be raised at the Appellate or at the Second Appellate stage. A Registered document in any event carries a presumption as to its genuineness, and in the absence of a challenge to its validity on permissible grounds like fraud or collusion, further proof of it is not necessary.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Order 13 Rule 3 — s.100 — Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — s.123 — Admissibility of a document and the mode and manner in which it was admitted — Waiver — Registered document — Presumption of genuineness — Adverse inference — Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Order 13 Rule 3 — Mode of admission — Waiver — Held: An objection to the mode and manner in which a document was admitted must be taken at the time of its tender before the Trial Court. Once marked and exhibited without any objection, it cannot be raised at the Second Appellate stage. (¶18) Evidence — Registered document — Presumption of genuineness — Further proof not necessary — Held further: A Registered document carries a presumption as to its genuineness, and in the absence of a challenge to its validity on any permissible grounds like fraud or collusion, further proof of it is not necessary. (¶19) Evidence — Adverse inference — Plaintiff not entering the witness box — Title proved by documentary evidence — Held further: Where the primary issue in the suit is title and the necessary documentary evidence is available, the oral evidence of the parties is absolutely not required. No adverse inference is drawn from the plaintiff not gracing the witness box. (¶23, 24) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — s.123 — Oral donation — Second appeal under s.100 CPC — Held further: A plea of oral donation cannot be sustained in the light of Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act. No perversity being found in the appreciation of evidence by the final Court of fact, the Second Appeal is dismissed. (¶15, 26, 27)

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of S.SUNDARAM GURUKKAL(died) v. RAJALAKSHMI — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India