Proof of document: A mandatory requirement for legal reliance?

Introduction

In legal proceedings, furnishing documents is a standard practice. In civil cases, it is common for parties to present various documents to the court that relate to different aspects of the case. However, it is essential to note that these documents should not always be accepted at face value or considered inherently reliable. Each document must be carefully scrutinized for accuracy and authenticity before it can be treated as evidence in court. In matters of law, the reliability and enforceability of a party’s claims or legal rights often hinge on the authenticity and verifiability of the documents submitted.

Proof of a document’s validity plays a crucial role. Beyond serving as evidence to establish a party’s intention or obligation, proper verification helps protect against fraud, misrepresentation, or misunderstanding. For instance, if Person X signs a letter of authorization in favor of a trustee to manage their trust, does the mere presentation of this document serve as absolute proof? Can such a document be accepted on its own without further scrutiny, or is additional proof required to establish its authenticity and legal standing? These questions underscore the critical importance of proof when relying on documents in legal matters. There are several legal provisions that explain how a document must be proved for it to be accepted. Some of these provisions are as follows:-

Relevant Provisions under law

• Proof of signature and handwriting of person alleged to have signed or written document produced– If a document is alleged to be signed or to have been written wholly or in part by any person, the signature or the handwriting of so much of the document as is alleged to be in that person’s handwriting must be proved to be in his handwriting.
• Proof of execution of document required by law to be attested- If a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the Court and capable of giving evidence. Provided that it shall not be necessary to call an attesting witness in proof of the execution of any document, not being a will, which has been registered in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, unless its execution by the person by whom it purports to have been executed is specifically denied
• Proof of document not required by law to be attested – An attested document not required by law to be attested may be proved as if it was unattested.
• Power to order any point to be proved by affidavit—Any Court may at any time for sufficient reason order that any particular fact or facts may be proved by affidavit, or that the affidavit of any witness may be read at the hearing, on such conditions as the Court thinks reasonable. Provided that where it appears to the Court that either party bona fide desires the production of a witness for cross-examination, and that such witness can be produced, an order shall not be made authorising the evidence of such witness to be given by affidavit.

The aforementioned legal provisions make it clear that proving a document is essential in law, but whether this is a mandatory requirement has been addressed by various courts on different occasions. Let’s delve into the judicial stance to clarify this point of law further.

Judicial Standing

The Hon’ble Supreme court in the case Bareilly electricity supply co. lt. v.s workmen and others addressed the issue of whether the mere production of a document is sufficient to prove its genuineness. The court observed: “when a document is produced in a Court or a Tribunal the questions that naturally arise is, is it a genuine document, what are its contents and are the statements contained therein true. When the appellant produced the balance-sheet and profit and loss account of the company, it does not by its mere production amount to a proof of it or of the truth of the entries therein. If these entries are challenged the appellant must prove each of such entries by producing the books and speaking from the entries made therein. If a letter or other document is produced to establish some fact which is relevant to the enquiry the writer must be produced or his affidavit in respect thereof be filed and opportunity afforded to the opposite party who challenges this fact. This is both in accords with principles of natural justice as also according to the procedure under Order 19 of the Civil Procedure Code and the Evidence Act both of which incorporate these general principles”.

The Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High court, in another case, court provide clarity on the issue of whether merely stating that a document is in the handwriting of a particular person constitutes sufficient proof under the law observed: “a document or signature can also be proved by calling a handwriting expert but unless the requirement of law is fulfilled, a document cannot be said to have been proved. If a document is alleged to have been executed or signed by a particular person, it must be proved by a witness who has either seen it being executed or who is acquainted with the handwriting/signature of the writer within the meaning of the explanation appended to section 47. If a person merely says that a particular document or a particular signature is of a particular person, it is not the compliance of law and cannot be said to be proper evidence of the fact required to be proved under section 47 of the Indian Evidence Act. Thus, unless requirement of law is fulfilled, the mere statement that the document is in the handwriting of a particular person is not sufficient proof under the law. At this stage it is also important to mention here that if a document is exhibited it by itself does not go to show that the requirement of law has been dispensed”.

Likewise the Hon’ble Patna High court observed: “It is now a well settled principle of law that the documents upon which reliance is sought to be placed must be brought on records of the case legally. It is also well settled that documents do not prove themselves. As no witness was examined on behalf of the respondent 3 for proving the aforementioned documents, there is absolutely no doubt that there has been a procedural infirmity committed by the respondent 1 in passing the impugned order ”.

Furthermore, explaining the true essence of section 47 of the Indian evidence act (now section 67 of BSA) in a related decision, the Hon’ble Bombay High court in Bank of India V.s Allibhoy Mohammed & Ors .,observed: “Where the execution of the document like promissory note was denied, it is required to be proved through the scribe, where the truth of the facts stated in the affidavit is in issue mere proof of handwriting and execution of the document would not furnish evidence of the truth of the facts stated in the document or contents.

Truth or otherwise of the facts or contents so stated would have to be proved by admissible evidence, i.e. by the evidence of person who can vouchsafe for the truth of the facts in issue as held by the Apex Court in Ramji Dayawala and Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Invest Import, A.I.R. 1981, S.C. 2085. Person with knowledge must be examined. Every document should first be started by some proof before the person who disputed that document can in any way be considered as proved because its genuineness is not disputed by the opposite party. Documents do not prove themselves. In the case on hand, person who can vouch for truth of the facts in issue has not been examined. Hence, documents cannot be said to have been proved in accordance with the provisions of Evidence Act.”

Along the same lines, the Hon’ble Gujarat High court in John Mithalal Desai V/s Dineshbhai K. Vora observed: “The documents are to be admitted in evidence and marked as exhibit when proved in accordance with law. In other words, documents upon which reliance is placed by the party must be brought on record legally. Mere making the document as exhibit is not enough…It must well be remembered that not only the execution of the document but also the contents thereof are required to be proved for execution even if proved is not the proof of the contents of the document. When the truth of the facts or contents stated in the document is in issue, the same are required to be proved by admissible evidence, i.e. by the evidence of those persons who can vouchsafe for the truth of the facts in issue for mere proof of execution and handwriting would show that particular contents are there but not the truth thereof”.

Conclusion & Analysis

Based on the judicial observations from various courts, the following point wise analysis can be drawn regarding the admissibility and proof of documents:
1. Mere Production of document is Insufficient: Merely producing a document in court, such as a balance sheet or promissory note, or a letter etc. does not amount to proof of the document or the truth of its contents. Both the genuineness and the truthfulness of the document must be separately proved.

2. Requirement of Witnesses for Proof: If a document’s execution or its contents are challenged, it must be proved by a witness who either saw the execution or is familiar with the handwriting/signature, as per Section 47 of the Indian Evidence Act. A mere assertion of authenticity is not sufficient without compliance with legal requirements.

3. Handwriting and Execution Do Not Prove Contents: While handwriting or signature proof is necessary to establish the execution of the document, it does not automatically prove the truth of the facts or contents stated in the document. Admissible evidence is required from someone who can vouch for the truth of those contents.

4. Procedural Compliance is Mandatory: Documents must be brought on record legally, meaning they should be proven following the procedural requirements of law. Exhibiting a document does not automatically make it legally admissible or prove its authenticity or truth.

Hence, the courts, through their decisions, emphasize the importance of following due legal processes in proving documents. The judgments illustrate that legal proof involves not just the production of a document but also a detailed process of verification. This approach aligns with the principles of natural justice and safeguards against fraudulent or unverified claims. It reinforces the notion that documentary evidence, much like oral testimony, must be rigorously tested before it can be accepted as fact. The legal system thus maintains a strict standard to ensure the authenticity and reliability of the evidence presented in court.

AUTHOR: Yashi Jain, law graduate from Marwadi University, Rajkot, Gujarat.

Related article links: https://jpassociates.co.in/reservation-laws/

Link to the Supreme Court’s website: https://main.sci.gov.in