Marking is Not Proof: Supreme Court Reaffirms Liberal Approach to Document Admissibility in Probate Proceedings

Case Snapshot

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

Citation: 2026 INSC 813

Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh

Date of Judgment: August 7, 2026

Area of Law: Civil Procedure, Evidence Law, Probate Law

Judgment in Brief

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal challenging the High Court's refusal to eschew certain documents from a proof affidavit in testamentary proceedings. The appellants sought to exclude documents filed by the plaintiff (respondent) in a probate suit, arguing that they were irrelevant or inadmissible.

The Court upheld the findings of the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the Madras High Court, holding that:

1. Filing of a lengthy proof affidavit cannot be faulted, especially when the defendant had filed a voluminous written statement.

2. Mere marking of a document as an exhibit does not amount to its proof—the contents must still be proved in accordance with the law of evidence.

3. Documents should not be shut out at the initial stage of trial; objections to admissibility are to be decided at the final stage, following the procedure laid down in Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat.

4. Order XIII Rule 3 of the CPC empowers the court to reject irrelevant or inadmissible documents, but such power must be exercised judiciously and not at the threshold.

The Court also reiterated the settled principle that marking a document as an exhibit does not dispense with the requirement of proving its contents. The probate proceedings were directed to proceed uninfluenced by the observations, and the stay granted earlier was vacated.

Relevant Facts

The Suit: The respondent (plaintiff) filed a probate suit (O.P. No. 164 of 2020, later converted to T.O.S. No. 12 of 2021) seeking probate of the will of late C. Shyamalavalli before the Madras High Court. The suit remains pending.

Written Statement: The appellant (defendant) filed a written statement on April 19, 2021.

Proof Affidavit: On August 10, 2022, the plaintiff filed a proof affidavit with documents.

Application to Eschew: The appellant filed Application No. 4262 of 2022 seeking to eschew (exclude) the proof affidavit, averments, and exhibited documents, contending that certain documents and averments were irrelevant to the testamentary proceedings.

Single Judge's Order (November 4, 2022): The Single Judge dismissed the application, holding that:

• Filing a lengthy proof affidavit cannot be faulted, as the defendant themselves filed a 16-page written statement.

• Xerox copies of documents (without explanation for non-availability of originals) cannot be marked, but all other documents can be received in evidence.

• Marking of the will is different from proof of the same.

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.