Admissibility and Evidentiary Value of a Notarized Document: Requirement of Proper Exhibition and Proof

Admissibility and Evidentiary Value of a Notarized Document: Requirement of Proper Exhibition and Proof

1. Introduction

In civil and criminal proceedings across Indian courts, notarized documents are frequently relied upon as supporting evidence. Parties often assume that notarization by a Notary Public itself renders a document “proved” or automatically admissible. This assumption, however, is legally unsustainable. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and judicial precedents make it clear that while notarization may create a presumption regarding the execution of the document, it does not dispense with the mandatory requirement of proving the document by legally admissible evidence. A notarized document must be produced, marked as an exhibit, and proved through proper evidentiary procedure, especially when the execution or contents of the document are in dispute.

This article examines the statutory principles and authoritative judicial pronouncements governing the admissibility of notarized documents.

2. Statutory Framework

(a) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 67

Section 67 requires proof of the signature or handwriting of the person alleged to have executed the document: “If a document is alleged to be signed or written wholly or in part by any person, the signature or handwriting of so much of the document must be proved to be in his handwriting.” Thus, even where a document is notarized, the signature/handwriting of the executant must be established, unless specifically admitted by the opposite party.

(b) Notaries Act, 1952 — Section 8

Section 8 empowers a Notary to authenticate or attest documents: “A notary may verify, authenticate, certify or attest the execution of any instrument.” However, this attestation merely confirms that the person signed in the presence of the Notary. It does not operate as proof of the truth of the contents of the document.

3. Key Judicial Pronouncements

A. Thiruvengadam Pillai v. Navaneethammal (2008) 4 SCC 530

The Supreme Court held: “A notarized document does not by itself prove the contents thereof. The document is admissible as evidence only if it is properly exhibited and proved in accordance with the Evidence Act.”

This case authoritatively settles that notarization does not equate to proof.

B. Shiv Lal & Ors. v. Chet Ram & Ors., AIR 1971 P&H 436

The Punjab & Haryana High Court observed: “A document merely attested by a Notary Public cannot be accepted as substantive evidence unless duly exhibited and proved in accordance with law.”

Thus, notarization cannot cure a failure to prove the document.

C. Shanti Devi v. Amar Nath, AIR 1987 P&H 149

The Court emphasized: “Notarization does not confer automatic admissibility. The document must be exhibited and proved during trial. Mere notarization is not a substitute for proof.”

D. K.K. Mohammed v. G. Subramaniam, 2009 (2) MLJ 208

The Madras High Court reiterated: “It is mandatory to produce the notarized document in court and have it marked as an exhibit if any reliance is placed on its contents. Notarization alone does not amount to proof.”

4. Practical Legal Principle:

Notarization of a document only raises a presumption of due execution or authenticity of signatures, but it does not by itself make the document admissible in evidence. For a notarized document to carry evidentiary value, it must be produced before the Court and marked as an exhibit. Further, if the execution or the contents of such a document are disputed, the party relying upon it must independently prove the same through admissible evidence, either oral or documentary, in accordance with the Indian Evidence Act. Failure to exhibit or prove the document renders any reliance placed upon it legally untenable. Therefore, a notarized document cannot be relied upon unless it is (i) produced in Court, (ii) properly marked as an exhibit, and (iii) proved by admissible evidence when its contents are disputed.

5. Notarization serves only as prima facie evidence of execution, not of the truth or correctness of the contents. The Indian Evidence Act mandates that the party relying on the document must prove its execution and genuineness, particularly when the opposing party disputes its validity. The consistent judicial view is that mere notarization does not elevate a document to the status of proved evidence. Therefore, advocates must ensure that notarized documents are properly exhibited and, where necessary, supported by oral or circumstantial evidence to establish their credibility and evidentiary value.

Thank you for reading.

Authored by 

The Spiritual Lawyer 🦅 

Advocate Ranjitsinh Sureshrao Ghatge  🦅 

+919823044282

1957

12th Kartik 14234

English Date 

3Rd November 2025