Introduction
In a significant ruling on the law of evidence, the Supreme Court of India has reaffirmed that a photocopy of a document cannot be treated as legal evidence unless the strict conditions for producing secondary evidence under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 are fully satisfied. The judgment underscores the importance of foundational proof before courts can rely on copies of documents, particularly in disputes involving property transactions and powers of attorney.
The decision gains importance in an era where property sales and litigation frequently rely on photocopies, scanned documents, and digital reproductions. The Supreme Court’s ruling acts as a cautionary reminder that procedural safeguards under evidence law are not mere technicalities, but essential to ensuring fairness and authenticity in judicial proceedings.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from a property transaction allegedly executed through a Power of Attorney (PoA). The plaintiff claimed that she had executed only a limited Power of Attorney in favour of her brother in 1998, authorising him merely to manage the property. According to her, clauses allowing sale or alienation of the property were expressly struck out.
The defendants, however, asserted that the plaintiff had executed a general Power of Attorney, granting full authority to sell the property. To support their claim, they relied solely on a notarised photocopy of the alleged Power of Attorney, as the original document was never produced before the court.
On the strength of this photocopy, the property was sold to third parties related to the brother.
Conflicting Findings of Lower Courts
The case travelled through multiple judicial forums, revealing contrasting interpretations of evidence law:
- Trial Court:
Accepted the plaintiff’s version and held that the sale deeds were void, as the defendants failed to prove the authority to alienate the property. - First Appellate Court:
Reversed the trial court’s decision, accepted the photocopy of the Power of Attorney as valid, and upheld the sale. - High Court:
Restored the trial court’s decree, holding that reliance on an unproven photocopy amounted to reliance on inadmissible evidence.
Aggrieved by the High Court’s judgment, the defendants approached the Supreme Court.
Legal Issue Before the Supreme Court
The central question before the Supreme Court was:
Can a photocopy of a document be relied upon as evidence without satisfying the conditions prescribed for secondary evidence under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872?
Closely connected to this was the issue of whether mere marking of a photocopy as an exhibit is sufficient to prove its contents.
Understanding Sections 64 and 65 of the Evidence Act
Section 64 – Primary Evidence Rule
Section 64 mandates that documents must be proved by primary evidence, meaning the original document itself, except in cases expressly provided under the Act.
Section 65 – When Secondary Evidence Is Permitted
Secondary evidence, such as photocopies or oral accounts, may be admitted only when:
- The original document is lost or destroyed
- The original is in possession of the opposite party
- The original is a public document
- The original cannot be produced due to reasons recognised by law
Even then, the party must first account for the non-production of the original.
Supreme Court’s Reasoning
A Bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice SVN Bhatti upheld the High Court’s view and dismissed the appeal. The Court made several important observations:
1. Photocopy Is Only Secondary Evidence
The Court reiterated that a photocopy is secondary evidence, and by itself has no evidentiary value unless it satisfies the statutory conditions under Section 65.
2. Two-Step Test for Secondary Evidence
The Court clarified that introducing secondary evidence involves a conjunctive two-step process:
- Establish the right to lead secondary evidence by explaining why the original cannot be produced.
- Prove the contents of the document, including authentication that the copy is a true and faithful reproduction of the original.
Failure at either stage renders the secondary evidence inadmissible.
Mere Exhibition Does Not Amount to Proof
One of the most crucial principles reaffirmed by the Court was that:
Merely admitting a document or marking it as an exhibit does not dispense with the requirement of proving it in accordance with law.
Courts are under a duty to examine the probative value of a document before relying upon it. If foundational facts—such as loss of the original or circumstances of copying—are not established, the document cannot be legally acted upon.
Failure to Prove the Original Bars Secondary Evidence
The Supreme Court further held that if a party fails to prove the validity or existence of the original document, that party cannot be permitted to rely on secondary evidence of its contents. In the present case:
- The defendants failed to prove the existence of a valid general Power of Attorney
- No explanation was offered as to where the original was, or how the photocopy was prepared
- There was no evidence showing that the photocopy was a true copy of the original
As a result, reliance on the photocopy amounted to reliance on “no evidence in the eyes of law.”
Application of Law to the Present Case
Applying these principles, the Court observed that the First Appellate Court committed a serious error by relying on the photocopy to uphold the sale. Since the photocopy was inadmissible, the finding that the brother had the power to alienate the property was legally unsustainable.
The High Court was therefore correct in correcting this misreading of evidence and restoring the trial court’s decree. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.
Significance of the Judgment
This ruling carries important legal and practical implications:
1. Property Transactions
Parties relying on Powers of Attorney must ensure production and proof of the original document. Photocopies alone are insufficient to transfer title.
2. Trial Practice
Lawyers must strictly comply with the foundational requirements of secondary evidence, failing which their entire case may collapse.
3. Judicial Discipline
The judgment reinforces that appellate courts cannot uphold findings based on inadmissible or unproven documents.
4. Evidence Law Clarity
The decision strengthens the principle that procedure under the Evidence Act is substantive in nature, not a mere technical formality.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s ruling decisively reiterates a fundamental rule of evidence law: a photocopy is not evidence unless proved in accordance with statutory requirements. By insisting on strict compliance with Sections 64 and 65 of the Evidence Act, the Court has safeguarded the integrity of documentary proof and prevented misuse of unverified copies in property disputes.
The judgment serves as a vital precedent for courts, litigants, and legal practitioners, ensuring that property rights cannot be altered or extinguished on the basis of unproven secondary evidence.
Also Read
Kerala’s Abolished Joint Family System Faces Supreme Court Test Over Daughters’ Coparcenary Rights
