Madras HC Upholds Order Letting Daughter Call Hospital Doctor to Support Claim She Was a Minor When Property Power of Attorney Was Signed

The plaintiff filed a suit seeking, among other reliefs, a declaration that a 2005 General Power of Attorney was not binding on her and partition of the suit properties.

She claimed she was a minor when it was executed and relied on a birth certificate recording her date of birth as 30 October 1987. The fourth defendant disputed that certificate, relying on documents recording her birth date as 2 June 1987.

After both sides closed their evidence and the suit was posted for arguments, the plaintiff sought to reopen her evidence to examine the doctor from the hospital where she was allegedly born. The Trial Court allowed the application subject to costs; the fourth defendant challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

The Court considered its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution and applied the principle that interference with a Trial Court’s procedural order is not warranted absent illegality, irregularity or perversity.

It also proceeded on the principle that a party may be afforded a fair opportunity to adduce evidence relevant to its case, while the opposing party remains entitled to contest and cross-examine the witness; allowing evidence does not itself establish the truth of the claim.

The competing documents recorded different dates of birth, and the plaintiff sought to support the birth certificate by examining the doctor concerned.

The Court held that the certificate’s genuineness and reliability, the correct date of birth, and any estoppel were matters for determination at trial on the evidence as a whole; the plaintiff’s opportunity to adduce supporting evidence should not be foreclosed.

The fourth defendant could cross-examine the doctor and challenge the evidence, so permitting the examination did not itself prejudice his rights or resolve the merits.

The Trial Court’s order disclosed no ground for supervisory interference.

It directed the Trial Court to proceed in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the High Court’s observations on the merits of the date-of-birth dispute. No order was made as to costs, and the connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition was closed.