Supreme Court: Mere Marking Of Document As Exhibit Is Not Proof Of Contents

 It is also settled law that mere marking of a document as an exhibit, is not a proof of the contents thereof. A Division Bench of this Court in LIC v. Ram Pal Singh Bisen2 had observed:{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 requiredto be done in accordance with law.

31. 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.”

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026

S. SANGEETHA & ORS Vs  TMT. P. PONNI 

Author: SANJAY KAROL, J.

Dated: August 07, 2026

Citation: 2026 INSC 813

Print Page

Bombay HC: Registered Sale Deed Cannot Be Contradicted by an Unregistered Agreement; Trial Court Cannot Act as a Mere Post Office of the Prosecution

 I am afraid this contention cannot be heard in law. The law of this subject is very well settled. The Apex Court in the matter of S.Saktivel (Dead) By Lrs vs. M.Venugopal Pillai And Ors [MANU/SC/0499/2000 : 2000:INSC:395 : AIR 2000 SC 2633] has held that terms of registered agreement can be altered only by another registered agreement. This important fact was not considered by both the Courts. {Para 16}

17. Admittedly, there is a registered document which defines the relationship between the First Informant and the present Applicants as that of Vendor and Seller. This is a document which is in the nature of sale-deed. Since the payment has been paid and the title has been transferred therefore, there is no question of their being any contrary interpretation of those documents. The reliance on the part of the First Informant upon the un-registered separate agreement dated 07.05.2014 and the Paratfed Agreement (re-payment agreement) dated 09.10.2016 is without any substance in as much as there documents were never executed by the Applicants but it was executed only by the Accused No. 1.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (KOLHAPUR BENCH)

Criminal Application No. 921 of 2025

Prabhakar Rajaram Kshirsagar and Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Sandesh D. Patil, J.

Decided On: 24.07.2026

Citation: MANU/MH/5420/2026

Print Page

Supreme Court: Sale Deed Does Not Require Proof Of Attestation As Per Section 68 of Evidence Act

There is no gainsaying that Section 68 of Evidence Act opens with the words,

“if a document is required by law to be attested…”. Since the

proviso cannot be construed independently of the main

provision that it attaches to, it is as clear as a noon day that

the proviso to Section 68 cannot create an independent rule

as regards “specific denial” for all attested documents. In

other words, the proviso to Section 68 carves out an

exception only in respect of documents that are required to

be mandatorily attested by law. A sale deed does not fall in

the category of such documents, therefore, the proviso to

Section 68 would not be applicable in the present matter.{Para 46}

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6526 OF 2024

R. VERONICA & ANR. Vs RUDRAYANI DEVAKI(D) THROUGH LRS. S. SATHA KUMAR & ORS.

Citation: 2026 INSC 703

Print Page

Supreme Court: Registered Sale Deed Presumed Valid; Minor Discrepancy In Attestation Witness Details Won't Invalidate Execution

 In our considered opinion, the aforesaid discrepancy was wholly inconsequential and incapable of dislodging the presumption attaching to a registered conveyance executed nearly four decades earlier. The sale deed in question was executed on 04.06.1957, whereas the testimony of the attesting witness came to be recorded after approximately 38 years on 07.09.1995. In such circumstances, minor variations in the description of residence or village particulars could hardly be treated as material contradictions striking at the root of the transaction itself, particularly when both villages are admittedly proximate to each other. {Para 55}

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8705 OF 2026

SARAFAT ALI (DECEASED) Vs DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF

CONSOLIDATION HARIDWAR AND OTHERS

Author: PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.

Citation: 2026 INSC 652

Print Page