Should an adverse inference be drawn where a plaintiff proves his title by documentary evidence without entering the witness box?

No. Where the primary issue in the suit is with regard to title and the necessary documentary evidence to prove it is available, the oral evidence of the parties is absolutely not required, the document itself being the best evidence placed before the Court for proving title. The non examination of the plaintiff therefore does not detract from the merits of his case, and the contention that an adverse inference should be drawn for not gracing the witness box was rejected.

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