Tharammel Peethambaran And Another Vs T. Ushakrishnan And Another (Supreme Court of India)
In Tharamel Peethambaran v. T. Ushakrishnan (2026 LiveLaw (SC) 128) , the core issue before the Supreme Court was whether a photocopy of a document (Power of Attorney) could be relied upon as secondary evidence without satisfying the mandatory requirements under Sections 64 and 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and whether findings based on such inadmissible evidence could be sustained in law.
The facts of the case reveal that the dispute arose out of sale deeds executed by the defendant claiming authority under a Power of Attorney allegedly granted by the plaintiff. The defendant relied upon a notarised photocopy of the Power of Attorney to justify the authority to sell the property. The plaintiff denied granting such authority and contended that the document relied upon by the defendant was fabricated. Significantly, the original Power of Attorney was never produced, and no proper foundation was laid to justify leading secondary evidence. The Trial Court held the document to be unreliable and declared the sale deeds invalid. However, the First Appellate Court reversed the findings by accepting the photocopy as secondary evidence and upholding the validity of the sale deeds. The High Court, in second appeal, restored the Trial Court’s judgment, holding that the photocopy was inadmissible in the absence of compliance with Sections 65 and 66 of the Evidence Act.
