J AND K BOARD OF SCHOOL EDUCATION Vs. PREM KUMAR
LAWS(J&K)-1986-2-3
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Decided on February 11,1986

J.AND K.BOARD OF SCHOOL EDUCATION Appellant
VERSUS
PREM KUMAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) ORDER :- A confusion (though not uncommon) in the mind of the learned trial Court between the mode of proof and adequacy of proof of a document resulted in the disallowing of a question put by the petitioner to his witness regarding the authorship of the entries in the School admission register and the consequential filing of the present revision petition.
(2.) The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that his date of birth is 1-6-1936 corresponding to 20th June, 1993 Bikrim. He also sought the consequential, relief by way of a mandatory injunction to the petitioner-defendant to make the necessary correction in its records. The petitioner-defendant resisted the suit is as to what is the correct date of birth of the respondent-plaintiff. After the evidence of the plaintiff was over, the defendant led its evidence. During the course of the defendant's evidence, one of its witnesses produced the original admission register from the S.R.M.P. High School and it forms a part of the Court record. The register contains an entry wherein the date of birth, as originally declared, appears to have been changed. The changed date of birth, as recorded, is 3o-11-1934, corresponding to 18-8-1991 Bikrami. The entry, according to the defendant, is in the hand of the then Principal of the S.R.M.P. High School, Shri N. D. Suri and it sought to prove it by the opinion evidence of S. Harbans Singh, an officer of the defendant Board, on the basis that the witness is acquainted with the handwriting of Shri N.D. Suri. The Court disallowed the question to be put on the ground that it is only the scribe of the entry, where he is alive and available, who can prove such an entry. The trial Court opined that the evidence of S. Harbans Singh is in the nature of secondary evidence which could not be allowed unless it was established that the primary evidence was not available.
(3.) The argument of Mr. Thakur is two-fold :- one that under S.67, Evidence Act, a document can be proved by proving the handwriting or signature of the person who wrote it and two that opinion of person who is acquainted with the handwriting of the person whose handwriting is in question, is made a relevant fact. He, therefore, argued that the question put by him to the witness was relevant and hence admissible and its rejection by the trial Court on the assumption that it was not primary evidence was wrong.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.