Authority: High Court of Madras
Order Date: 23-07-2026
Case Overview
- Parties: Applicant – Pavalai Kalyanasundara Mudaliar Trust (represented by Managing Trustee G. Nehruji) and associated individuals; Respondents – Arulmigu Sivasubramania Swamy Thirukkoil and eleven other individuals, including Mrs. Anitha Bhansali, Mr. Gangan M. Bhansali, Mr. Parasmal Jain, etc., and the Commissioner of Chennai Corporation.
- Nature of Proceeding: Application (A No. 3003 of 2026, CS No. 553 of 2011) filed by the first defendant seeking leave to file twelve historical documents as additional suit documents/evidence.
- Documents Sought: Xerox copies of wills (dated 1888, 1905, 1984), patta (23.04.1986), High Court orders (1906, 2009), supplemental deed of trust (27.12.2007), land register extracts (2009, 2011), name‑transfer approval (13.03.2010), water‑supply receipt (01.06.2010), planning permit (02.06.2010).
- Allegations/Issues: The applicant argued that original documents were unavailable and therefore requested admission of Xerox copies as secondary evidence under Sections 63 and 65 of the Indian Evidence Act.
- Court’s Observations: The court noted that only Xerox copies were offered and the supporting affidavit failed to provide the statutory particulars required to admit secondary evidence. Citing H. Siddiqui v. A. Ramalingam (2011) 4 SCC 240, the court emphasized that secondary evidence cannot be admitted without proper foundation.
Final Outcome
- The application to admit the Xerox copies as additional documents was dismissed.
- No costs were awarded to either party.
Topics: Evidence Law, Civil Procedure