S.Murugesan v. M.v.Krishna Rao
Case brief
What is this about?
The Court allowed an application filed by a 3rd defendant to produce a tape recorded conversation with the 1st defendant as evidence in the suit, subject to proof and relevancy, despite objections regarding lack of corroboration and delayed disclosure.
What did the court decide?
Leave granted to produce the tape recorded conversation and its transcript as evidence subject to proof and relevancy.
What the court decided
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS (ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION) TUESDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
A. No.1282 of 2018 in C.S. No.925 of 2010
1.M.V.Krishna Rao, S/o.Late M.Suriyanarayanamurthy, No.33, Old NO.16/5, 2nd Floor Akbarabad 1st Street Kodamabakkam, Chennai 600 024
*2.Mrs.Seetharajakumari, W/o.Late M.V.Krishna Rao, Hindu aged 64 years, No.33, Old No.16/5, 2nd Floor, Akbarabad 1st Street Kodamabakkam, Chennai 600 024
*3.M.B.V.Sathya Sai Prasad, S/o.Late M.V.Krishna Rao, Hindu aged 44 years, No.33, Old No.16/5, 2nd Floor, Akbarabad 1st Street Kodamabakkam, Chennai 600 024
*4.M.Suriyanarayanamurthy, S/o.Late M.V.Krishna Rao, Hindu aged 42 years, No.58, Woodlands, Dr.16, #09-18, Singapore 737 897.
*5.M.Bagya Suryalakshmi, D/o.Late M.V.Krishna Rao, Hindu aged 40 years, No.33, Old No.16/5, 2nd Floor, Akbarabad 1st Street Kodamabakkam, Chennai 600 024
2
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an application for leave to produce a tape recorded conversation should be allowed despite a failure to mention it in previous pleadings.
Whether the requisite corroboration of electronic evidence under Section 65(b) of the Evidence Act is a prerequisite for granting leave to produce the recording.
Whether the content of the recorded conversation is relevant for the pending suit.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
S. Murugesan
- petitioner
M. V. Krishna Rao
- respondent
Seetharajakumari
- respondent
M. B. V. Sathya Sai Prasad
- respondent
M. Suriyanarayanamurthy
- respondent
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court