JAGMAIL SINGH & ANR. versus KARAMJIT SINGH & ORS.

JAGMAIL SINGH & ANR. versus KARAMJIT SINGH & ORS.

The High Court erred in holding that existence of the Will remained unestablished; the appellants had laid sufficient factual foundation (including scribe's testimony and admissions in cross-examination of revenue officials) and, because the revenue officials failed to produce the original after notice, the appellants are entitled to lead secondary evidence under Sections 65 and 66 of the Indian Evidence Act, subject to proof of authenticity at trial.

Parties
Appellant: JAGMAIL SINGH & ANR.; Respondent: KARAMJIT SINGH & ORS.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
13 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Secondary Evidence, Section 65 Indian Evidence Act, Section 66 Indian Evidence Act, Proof of Will, Mutation
Evidence Property Law Secondary Evidence Section 65 Indian Evidence Act Section 66 Indian Evidence Act Proof of Will Mutation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JAGMAIL SINGH & ANR.

Appellant

KARAMJIT SINGH & ORS.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellants were entitled to lead secondary evidence of a Will under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act
  2. 2 Whether notice under Section 66 had been properly given and the original Will was not produced by the revenue officials
  3. 3 Whether the existence of the original Will was established sufficiently to permit secondary evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court erred in holding that existence of the Will remained unestablished; the appellants had laid sufficient factual foundation (including scribe's testimony and admissions in cross-examination of revenue officials) and, because the revenue officials failed to produce the original after notice, the appellants are entitled to lead secondary evidence under Sections 65 and 66 of the Indian Evidence Act, subject to proof of authenticity at trial.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Impugned judgment of the High Court dated 09.01.2017 set aside
  • Appellants entitled to lead secondary evidence in respect of the Will dated 24.01.1989