Mere marking of documents as exhibits does not prove their contents or truth.

The respondent filed a testamentary proceeding seeking probate of the will of late C. Shyamalavalli before the Madras High Court; the proceeding, initially registered as O.P. No. 164 of 2020, was later converted into T.O.S. No. 12 of 2021 and remained pending.

The appellants filed their written statement, after which the respondent filed a proof affidavit along with documents.

The appellants applied under Order XIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking exclusion of the affidavit, allegedly irrelevant averments, and exhibited documents.

The Single Judge rejected the application, while observing that certain xerox documents could not be marked in the absence of an explanation for non-production of the originals, but that the remaining documents could be received for determining title and rival claims concerning the will.

The Division Bench dismissed the appellants’ appeal and imposed costs of ₹10,000, holding, inter alia, that mere filing or marking of evidence did not amount to proof and that the evidence should not be shut out at the threshold.

The appellants thereafter approached the Supreme Court.

Whether the proof affidavit and documents filed by the respondent were liable to be eschewed at the threshold under Order XIII Rule 3 CPC as irrelevant or inadmissible in the testamentary proceedings?

Whether the documents marked or exhibited could be excluded merely on the ground that their contents had not yet been proved in accordance with law?

Whether mere marking or admission of documents dispensed with the requirement of proving their contents and truth at trial?

The Court applied Order XIII Rule 3 CPC, under which a court may reject, at any stage, a document that is irrelevant or otherwise inadmissible, while recording reasons for doing so.

It relied on Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat, (2001) 3 SCC 1, which holds that, except where the objection concerns deficiency of stamp duty, objections to admissibility may ordinarily be recorded and the document marked tentatively, subject to determination at the final stage.

The Court further applied the settled principle from LIC v. Ram Pal Singh Bisen, (2010) 4 SCC 491, along with Sait Tarajee Khimchand v. Yelamarti Satyam, Narbada Devi Gupta v. Birendra Kumar Jaiswal, and Vijay v. Union of India, that mere admission or marking of a document as an exhibit does not amount to proof of its contents or truth; the contents must be proved through primary or legally admissible secondary evidence.

In testamentary proceedings, the propounder must ultimately prove the will to the satisfaction of the court.

The Supreme Court held that the documents challenged by the appellants, except the xerox copies already excluded by the Single Judge for want of explanation regarding the originals, were not prima facie irrelevant or inadmissible to the properties and rival claims involved in the testamentary proceeding.

The references in the proof affidavit to other suits and transfers of properties within the same family structure could not be rejected at the threshold, since their relevance and evidentiary value were matters to be assessed during the proceedings.

Applying Bipin Shantilal Panchal, the Court emphasized that premature exclusion of evidence could prejudice the trial and create difficulties at the appellate stage.

At the same time, the Court clarified that the respondent would still have to prove the contents and evidentiary value of the marked documents in accordance with law; their marking did not establish their truth or dispense with formal proof.

Accordingly, there was no justification for exercising the power under Order XIII Rule 3 CPC to eschew the remaining documents or affidavit material at that stage.

The Court held that the challenged documents, other than the xerox copies already excluded, should not be rejected at the threshold, but their contents would have to be proved in accordance with law during the testamentary proceedings.

The proceedings in T.O.S. No. 12 of 2021 were directed to continue uninfluenced by the Supreme Court’s observations, the stay granted on 11 November 2024 was vacated, and pending applications were disposed of.