Law Insider India

Legal News, Current Trends and Legal Insight | Supreme Court of India and High Courts

[Landmark Judgement] Cheeranthoodika Ahmmedkutty v/s Parambur Mariakutty Umma (2000)

2 min read
Landmark Judgment Law Insider (1)

Published on: 14 November 2022 at 08:53 IST

Court – Supreme Court of India

Citation – Cheeranthoodika Ahmmedkutty v/s Parambur Mariakutty Umma (2000) 2 SCC 417

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has defined “Conclusive Proof” under the aegis of Section 4 of the Evidence Act, 1872 as when the enactment / action / commission / omission enjoins that any evidence would be treated as a conclusive proof of certain factual situation or legal hypothesis, thus in such scenario the law would forbid other evidence to be adduced for the purpose of contradicting or varying the aforesaid conclusiveness.

Para – 8

When the enactment enjoined that any evidence would be treated as conclusive proof of certain factual position or legal hypothesis the law would forbid other evidence to be adduced for the purpose of contradicting or varying the aforesaid conclusiveness. This is the principle embodied in Section 4 of the Evidence Act, when it defined “conclusive proof”:

“4. ‘Conclusive proof’.— When one fact is declared by this Act to be conclusive proof of another, the court shall, on proof of the one fact, regard the other as proved, and shall not allow evidence to be given for the purpose of disproving it.”

Para – 9 

Of course, the interdict that the court shall not allow evidence to be adduced for the purpose of disproving the conclusiveness, will not prevent a party who alleges fraud or collusion from establishing that the document is vitiated by such factors.

Except regarding the said limited sphere the conclusiveness of the document would remain beyond the reach of convertibility.

Drafted By Abhijit Mishra

Key Words – Conclusive Proof, Legal Hypothesis, Factual Situation,