Secondary Evidence Allowed Only Upon Strict Proof Of Loss Or Destruction Of Original Document: HP High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that courts can permit secondary evidence only upon strict proof that the original document is lost, destroyed, or withheld by the opposing party. Mere allegations or unsubstantiated claims of loss are insufficient grounds for such permission.

Justice Ajay Mohan Goel observed that: “An inquiry report revealed that no original document was submitted by the plaintiff for registration and what he had submitted was only a photocopy of the said Will and the complaint was also dismissed.”

Background Facts:

The dispute arose when Amar Nath, the deceased filed a suit seeking a declaration that he and Mansha Ram, were joint owners in equal shares of property belonging to Smt. Har Dei, based on her alleged Will in 2009.

Amarnath contended that after the death of their mother, Mansha Ram vaded the mutation process and later claimed exclusive ownership. He on the other hand denied the existence of the 2009 Will and asserted that their mother had already executed a in his favour in 1985.

Later, during the pendency of civil suit amarnath filed an application under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, seeking permission to lead secondary evidence of the 2009 Will. He alleged that the original Will had been misplaced from the office of the Sub-Registrar, due to the influence of petitioner.

His application was upheld by the trial court on the ground that “it was for the plaintiff to prove the alleged document by way of adducing secondary evidence in accordance with law and the same can also be determined only after an opportunity is given for the same”.

The petitioner contended before the High Court that the trial court committed an error by allowing the application as no proof of destruction, loss, or possession was produced.

In response, Amar Nath contended that the existence of the Will was not disputed and that since it had been misplaced from official custody, secondary evidence was the only available means to prove it.

Case Name: Shri Mansha Ram v/s Shri Amar Nath (since deceased) through Lrs. Sh. Ashok Kumar and others

Case No.: CMPMO No.475 of 2017

Date of Decision: 30.10.2025

For the Petitioner: Mr. Bhupender Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Janesh Gupta, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. Ashok Sud, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rajat, Advocate

Click Here To Read/Download Order