Latest JudgementIndian Evidence Act, 1872

Tharamel Peethambaran and Another v. T. Ushakrishnan and Another, 2026

The decision reinforces the principle that mere notarisation or admission as exhibit does not validate a document.

Supreme Court of India·9 February 2026

Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date of Decision

9 February 2026

Judges

Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice SVN Bhatti

Citation

Acts / Provisions

Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Facts of the Case

The plaintiff executed a Power of Attorney (PoA) in 1998, authorising management of her property, explicitly striking out clauses permitting sale.
The defendants claimed a general PoA existed empowering the plaintiff’s brother to sell the property.
Defendants relied on a notarised photocopy of the PoA to justify the sale in favour of the brothers’ in-laws.
The Trial Court declared the sale deeds void, siding with the plaintiff.
The First Appellate Court reversed this, upholding the PoA and the sale.
The Kerala High Court restored the Trial Court’s decree in a second appeal.
The defendants appealed to the Supreme Court.

Whether a photocopy of a Power of Attorney can be relied upon as evidence to validate a property sale?
Whether secondary evidence under Section 65 of the Evidence Act is admissible without proving the original document cannot be produced?
Whether the First Appellate Court erred in accepting a photocopy as proof of the power to alienate property?
Whether the High Court correctly applied the law regarding the admissibility of secondary evidence?

Photocopies or secondary evidence cannot substitute for the original unless Section 65 conditions are met.
The sale based on the photocopied PoA was invalid.
The High Court’s restoration of the Trial Court’s decree was upheld.
The defendants’ appeal to the Supreme Court was dismissed.

The court clarified the two-step process for admitting secondary evidence:
1. Establish legal entitlement to lead secondary evidence.
2. Prove the contents of the document through secondary evidence. Both steps are conjunctive.
The decision reinforces the principle that mere notarisation or admission as exhibit does not validate a document.
It underlines the strict application of Section 65 of the Evidence Act in preventing reliance on unverified copies.
The judgment corrects the misapplication of secondary evidence in property disputes and sets a precedent for proving PoAs.
It strengthens the probative standard required for documents used to transfer property rights.