V M NEELAKANTIAH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS are the plaintiffs in O. S. No. 237/2003 before the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Magadi 1st petitioner was examined as PW--1 in part. In the process of his evidence, he sought permission of the Court to mark a will said to have been executed by his mother-in-law bequeathing the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiffs. Trial Court has refused to grant permission to the petitioners to mark the said document through the 1st petitioner on the ground that he is the propounder of the Will and cannot be marked through a propounder and Will can be marked only through the attestor as required under Sec. 68 of the Evidence Act. This order is called is question in this writ petition.

(2.) HEARD the counsel for the petitioners.

(3.) BY looking into the provisions; of Sec. 68 of the Evidence Act, it is clear to the Court that if a document is required to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness has to be called for the purrpose of proving its execution. Now in this background, this Court has to examine the definition clause of 'evidence' under Sec. 3 of the indian Evidence Act. Definition of the word 'evidence' reads as hereunder :