Supreme Court Refuses to Exclude Documents from Probate Trial at Threshold; Holds Mere Marking as Exhibits Does Not Prove Their Contents Without Evidence

Supreme Court Refuses to Exclude Documents from Probate Proceedings; Holds Admissibility Objections Can Be Decided at Final Stage

Facts

The dispute arose from testamentary proceedings concerning the Will of late C. Shyamalavalli. The respondent-plaintiff, Tmt. P. Ponni, instituted proceedings before the Madras High Court on 17 October 2019, seeking probate of the Will. The original petition was subsequently converted into T.O.S. No. 12 of 2021, which remained pending before the High Court.

The appellants-defendants filed their written statement on 19 April 2021. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed a proof affidavit on 10 August 2022, containing various averments and exhibiting several documents. The defendants filed an application seeking to eschew the proof affidavit, its averments and the documents exhibited, contending that several of them were irrelevant to the testamentary proceedings.

The Single Judge rejected the application. However, xerox copies of Documents Nos. 5 to 9 were excluded because the originals had not been produced and no explanation for their absence was furnished. The remaining documents were permitted to remain in evidence.

The Division Bench dismissed the defendants’ appeal and imposed costs of Rs. 10,000, observing that evidence should not ordinarily be shut out at the initial stage and that mere filing of an affidavit does not prove its contents. The defendants consequently approached the Supreme Court.

Issues

Whether the proof affidavit and documents exhibited by the plaintiff should be excluded from the testamentary proceedings at the threshold.
Whether Order XIII Rule 3 CPC permitted rejection of the disputed documents as irrelevant or inadmissible.
Whether mere marking or exhibition of a document amounts to proof of its contents.
At what stage objections concerning admissibility and evidentiary value of documents should ordinarily be determined.

Appellants’ Arguments

The appellants sought exclusion of portions of the plaintiff’s proof affidavit and several documents on the ground that they were irrelevant to the probate proceedings.

Their case was essentially that testamentary proceedings concerned proof of the Will and that material relating to other disputes, suits and property transactions involving the same family ought not to be introduced into those proceedings.

They therefore invoked the Court’s power under Order XIII Rule 3 CPC, which authorises rejection at any stage of documents considered irrelevant or otherwise inadmissible.

Respondent’s Arguments

The respondent opposed exclusion of the evidence and supported the orders passed by the Single Judge and Division Bench.

The respondent’s position was that merely permitting documents to be marked or exhibited did not establish their contents or truth. The documents would still have to be proved in accordance with law during trial.

Further, documents concerning other suits and transfers of properties involving the same family structure could not be regarded as prima facie irrelevant to the testamentary dispute so as to justify their exclusion at the threshold.

Analysis of the Law

The Supreme Court examined Order XIII Rule 3 CPC, which permits a court at any stage of a suit to reject documents it considers irrelevant or otherwise inadmissible, provided reasons for such rejection are recorded.

The Court held that this power did not warrant exercise in the present case. Except for the xerox copies already excluded by the Single Judge, the objections raised against the remaining documents did not establish that they were prima facie inadmissible in law or irrelevant to the properties involved in the suit.

More importantly, the Court distinguished between three concepts: marking a document, admitting it into evidence, and proving its contents. A document being marked as an exhibit does not dispense with the requirement that its contents be proved through legally admissible evidence.

Precedent Analysis

The Supreme Court principally relied upon Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat, (2001) 3 SCC 1.

The three-Judge Bench in Bipin Shantilal Panchal had discouraged the practice of stopping a trial whenever an objection regarding admissibility is raised. Instead, except where an objection concerns deficiency of stamp duty, the preferred procedure is to record the objection, tentatively mark the evidence and decide the objection at the stage of final judgment. This prevents unnecessary remands if an appellate court subsequently takes a different view regarding admissibility.

The Court also relied upon LIC v. Ram Pal Singh Bisen, (2010) 4 SCC 491, reiterating that mere admission of a document in evidence does not amount to proof. Its contents must independently be proved in accordance with law.

The judgment additionally referred to Sait Tarajee Khimchand v. Yelamarti Satyam, Narbada Devi Gupta v. Birendra Kumar Jaiswal, and Vijay v. Union of India & Ors. in support of the same evidentiary principle.

Court’s Reasoning

The Supreme Court found no reason to interfere with the concurrent reasoning of the Single Judge and Division Bench.

It agreed that Documents Nos. 5 to 9, which were merely xerox copies without any explanation for non-production of the originals, had rightly been excluded. However, the remaining documents could not be rejected under Order XIII Rule 3 because the objections did not demonstrate that they were facially inadmissible or irrelevant.

The Court specifically held that averments and documents concerning other pending suits and transfers of properties involving the same family structure could not be rejected at the threshold. Their ultimate relevance, admissibility and evidentiary value could appropriately be determined as the proceedings progressed.

Crucially, permitting documents to be marked as exhibits caused no automatic prejudice because marking does not constitute proof. The party relying upon them would still have to establish their contents in accordance with the applicable rules of evidence.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Madras High Court’s judgment refusing to exclude the proof affidavit and remaining documents from the pending testamentary proceedings.

It held that the documents could remain on record at this stage, but their contents would have to be proved in accordance with law. The Court further directed that the testamentary proceedings should continue uninfluenced by its observations and vacated the stay of proceedings previously granted on 11 November 2024.

Case Details

Case: S. Sangeetha & Ors. v. Tmt. P. Ponni

Court: Supreme Court of India

Case Number: Civil Appeal of 2026 arising out of SLP (C) No. 26326 of 2024

Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh

Date: 07 August 2026

Result: Appeal dismissed; Madras High Court judgment upheld; documents permitted to remain exhibited subject to proof in accordance with law; stay on testamentary proceedings vacated.