Degree Of Certainty Must Be Arrived At Before A Fact Is Said To Be Proved: Madras High Court

Justice N. Anand Venkatesh, while passing the order focused on the importance of bringing certainty to a fact especially in civil matters.

The disputes in the present appeal were with respect to enjoyment of the 3rd item in the suit property. The main question was regarding the admissibility of a document showing a family arrangement for enjoyment of property in a particular manner between the family of original owners of the property.

The court highlighted that this document in question was never mentioned before even in the sale deeds also and was introduced for the first time during the pendency of the suit. This unregistered document was attempted to be put against registered sale deeds and a new right was sought to be created in favour of Kumarasamy, one of the original owner for an extent of 20 cents.

The court relied on the decision of Apex Court in Maya Devi v. Lalta Prasad (2015) where it was held that the probative value of a document has to be assessed strictly when it creates a new right in favour of a party.

"The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the probative value of a document has to be assessed strictly when it creates a new right in favour of a party. Such a document must be proved beyond doubts when it is put against registered documents where the same parties are involved and the unregistered document does not even find a mention in those registered documents."

The court then went on to explain the definition of the term "proved" as defined under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

"…it only means that anything which serves, either immediately or mediately, to convince the mind of the truth or falsehood of a fact or proposition and the proof of matters of fact in general are our senses, the testimony of witnesses, the documents, and the like. Proof does not mean proof to rigid mathematical demonstration, because that is impossible, and it must only mean that such evidence as would induce a reasonable man to come to the conclusion. The degree of certainty which must be arrived at before a fact is said to be proved is what has been described in this section. The definition of proof centres around probability. It is beyond cavil that the Court while dealing with civil cases applies a standard of proof governed by preponderance of probabilities"

Applying this principle to the present case, the court held that any prudent man will be bewildered by the fact that the document of the year 1975 was never mentioned earlier and was mentioned only in the oral petition. This shall cast a doubt upon the document since it alters the position that has been taken by the parties in their registered document. The only reasonable conclusion would be that the document does not really exist and was created to defeated the claims of parties to the registered document.

Thus, the court held that the lower appellate court had failed to consider the above view, and therefore the findings of the lower appellate court is perverse and the same is a result of improper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence.

Case Name: R. Selvaraj(died) and ors v Amutha and ors

Case No: SA 257 and 260 of 2012

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 144

Click here to read/download judgement