Facts
The respondent filed a testamentary suit seeking probate of a Will. After the respondent filed a proof affidavit, the appellants sought to eschew the affidavit and several documents, contending that they were irrelevant to the probate proceedings. The Single Judge rejected the application except in respect of certain xerox copies, and the Division Bench affirmed the order. The appellants appealed to the Supreme Court.
Issues Framed
Implied Issues:
(a) Whether documents and averments in a proof affidavit can be rejected at the threshold under Order XIII Rule 3 CPC.
(b) Whether mere marking of documents as exhibits dispenses with the requirement of proving their contents.
Court's Reasoning
(a) The Court held that Order XIII Rule 3 CPC permits rejection only of documents that are prima facie irrelevant or inadmissible. Except for the xerox copies lacking explanation for non-production of originals, the challenged documents were relevant to the dispute and should not be excluded at the initial stage. (Paras 9–10).
(b) Relying on Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat, the Court reiterated that objections to admissibility (other than stamp duty objections) should ordinarily be recorded and decided at the final stage, thereby avoiding delay in trial. (Para 10).
(c) Referring to LIC v. Ram Pal Singh Bisen, Sait Tarajee Khimchand, Narbada Devi Gupta, and Vijay v. Union of India, the Court held that mere marking of a document as an exhibit is not proof of its contents, which must still be established in accordance with law.
Held
The appeal was dismissed. The High Court's order was upheld, and the testamentary proceedings were directed to continue uninfluenced by the observations made in the appeal.
Conclusion
Documents which are not prima facie inadmissible should ordinarily not be rejected at the threshold under Order XIII Rule 3 CPC; their evidentiary value and objections to admissibility may be decided at the final stage, and mere exhibition of a document does not prove its contents.
Relevant Para
Para 11
“25. We are of the firm opinion that mere admission of a document in evidence does not amount to its proof. In other words, mere marking of exhibit on a document does not dispense with its proof, which is required to be done in accordance with law.
Under the law of evidence also, it is necessary that contents of documents are required to be proved either by primary or by secondary evidence. At the most, admission of documents may amount to admission of contents but not its truth. Documents having not been produced and marked as required under the Evidence Act cannot be relied upon by the court. Contents of the document cannot be proved by merely filing in a court.”
Case Details
Citation: 2026 INSC 813
Decided on: 07 August 2026
Case Title: S. Sangeetha & Ors. v. Tmt. P. Ponni
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Sanjay Karol, J.; Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, J.