The Supreme Court of India, in a Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh, has held that the mere marking or exhibiting of a document in evidence does not amount to proof of its contents, ruling that evidence should not be shut down at the threshold stage in probate proceedings. Dismissing an appeal filed by S. Sangeetha and others against Tmt. P. Ponni, the top court affirmed that objections regarding the admissibility or relevance of evidence should generally be evaluated during the final judgment rather than excluding evidence at the initial stage under Order XIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).
Case Background
The dispute arises out of testamentary proceedings initiated on October 17, 2019, when the respondent, Tmt. P. Ponni, filed a suit (O.P. No. 164 of 2020, later converted to T.O.S. No. 12 of 2021) before the High Court of Judicature at Madras, seeking probate of the will of late C. Shyamalavalli.
The appellants (defendants in the suit) filed their written statement on April 19, 2021. Subsequently, on August 10, 2022, the respondent filed a proof affidavit. Aggrieved by this, the appellants filed Application No. 4262 of 2022 seeking to eschew the proof affidavit, averments, and documents exhibited therein, contending that certain documents and statements were irrelevant to the testamentary proceedings.
Decisions of the High Court
A Single Judge of the Madras High Court dismissed the appellants’ application on November 4, 2022, observing that:
- Filing of a lengthy proof affidavit cannot be faulted, as the defendants themselves filed a 16-page written statement for a 5-page petition.
- Marking of the will is different from proof of the same, and it can be marked through the beneficiary of the will (PW-1).
- Document Nos. 5 to 9 could not be marked as they were xerox copies produced without any explanation for the non-availability of the originals.
- All other documents can be received in evidence for showing title and deciding rival claims on the will.
The appellants challenged this before a Division Bench of the High Court in OSA No. 31 of 2023. On August 21, 2024, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal with costs of Rs. 10,000 imposed on the appellants due to their conduct. The Division Bench noted that mere filing of an affidavit is not proof of the statements therein, eschewing the affidavit would cause serious prejudice to the respondent, and evidence—both oral and documentary—should not be shut down at the initial stage.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Case Law Cited
Hearing counsel for both sides, the Supreme Court found no reason to interfere with the reasoning of the lower courts. Examining Order XIII Rule 3 of the CPC—which empowers courts to reject irrelevant or inadmissible documents at any stage of a suit—the Bench held that the exercise of power under this rule was not warranted. The Court agreed that the Single Judge correctly eschewed the unexplained xerox copies while allowing other documents that were not prima facie inadmissible or irrelevant to the properties involved.
The Supreme Court emphasized that contentions and documents relating to the pendency of other suits and transfer of properties within the family structure cannot be rejected at the threshold.
To support its reasoning on handling evidentiary objections during trials, the Bench cited the three-Judge Bench ruling in Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat, reiterating:
Whenever an objection is raised during evidence-taking stage regarding the admissibility of any material or item of oral evidence the trial court can make a note of such objection and mark the objected document tentatively as an exhibit in the case (or record the objected part of the oral evidence) subject to such objections to be decided at the last stage in the final judgment. If the court finds at the final stage that the objection so raised is sustainable the Judge or Magistrate can keep such evidence excluded from consideration. In our view there is no illegality in adopting such a course.
Addressing the legal effect of marking documents as exhibits, the Court referred to the Division Bench judgment in LIC v. Ram Pal Singh Bisen (referencing Sait Tarajee Khimchand v. Yelamarti Satyam, Narbada Devi Gupta v. Birendra Kumar Jaiswal, and Vijay v. Union of India and Ors.):
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 required to be done in accordance with law.
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.
Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court held that the contents of the marked/exhibited documents will have to be proved in accordance with law during trial, and there was no reason to eschew them at this stage.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Madras High Court’s judgment dated August 21, 2024. The Court directed that testamentary proceedings in T.O.S. No. 12 of 2021 shall proceed uninfluenced by its observations, and vacated the stay granted on November 11, 2024.
Case Title: S. Sangeetha & Ors. v. Tmt. P. Ponni
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. ___ of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 26326 of 2024)
Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh
Date: August 07, 2026
