CASE LAWS ON PROOF OF A DOCUMENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU of Andhra Pradesh High Court in an election petition in Regu Maheswara Rao vs Vhyricherla Kishore Chandra ... Decided on 31 December, 2010, elaborately discussed following decisions regarding “Proof of Document”
GOPALA KRISHNAJI KETKAR V MOHAMMED HAJI LATIF AIR 1968 SC 1413 , wherein it was held thus: "We are unable to accept this argument as correct. Even if the burden of proof does not lie on a party the Court may draw an adverse inference if he withholds important documents in his possession which can throw light on the facts at issue. It is not, in our opinion, a sound practice for those desiring to rely upon a certain state of facts to withhold from the Court the best evidence which is in their possession which could throw light upon the issues in controversy and to rely upon the abstract doctrine of onus of proof."
SAIT TARAJEE KHIMCHAND AND OTHERS V YELAMARTI SATYAM AND OTHERS AIR 1971 SC 1865, wherein it was held thus: "THE plaintiffs wanted to rely on Exhibits A-12 and A-13, the day book and the ledger respectively. The plaintiffs did not prove these books. There is no reference to these books in the judgments. The mere marking of an exhibit does not dispense with the proof of documents. It is common place to say that the negative cannot be proved. The proof of the plaintiffs' books of account became important because the plaintiffs' accounts were impeached and falsified by the defendants' case of larger payments than those admitted by the plaintiffs. The irresistible inference arises that the plaintiff's books would not have supported the plaintiffs."
GOPALA KRISHNAJI KETKAR V MOHAMMED HAJI LATIF AIR 1968 SC 1413 , wherein it was held thus: "We are unable to accept this argument as correct. Even if the burden of proof does not lie on a party the Court may draw an adverse inference if he withholds important documents in his possession which can throw light on the facts at issue. It is not, in our opinion, a sound practice for those desiring to rely upon a certain state of facts to withhold from the Court the best evidence which is in their possession which could throw light upon the issues in controversy and to rely upon the abstract doctrine of onus of proof."
SAIT TARAJEE KHIMCHAND AND OTHERS V YELAMARTI SATYAM AND OTHERS AIR 1971 SC 1865, wherein it was held thus: "THE plaintiffs wanted to rely on Exhibits A-12 and A-13, the day book and the ledger respectively. The plaintiffs did not prove these books. There is no reference to these books in the judgments. The mere marking of an exhibit does not dispense with the proof of documents. It is common place to say that the negative cannot be proved. The proof of the plaintiffs' books of account became important because the plaintiffs' accounts were impeached and falsified by the defendants' case of larger payments than those admitted by the plaintiffs. The irresistible inference arises that the plaintiff's books would not have supported the plaintiffs."
- https://www.lawweb.in/2013/09/case-laws-on-proof-of-document.html
