Relevancy of statements in maps, charts and plans
Section 36 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with the relevancy of statements made in maps, charts, and plans. The section states that:
“Statements of facts in issue or relevant facts, made in published maps or charts generally offered for public sale, or in maps or plans made under the authority of the Central Government or any State Government, as to matters usually represented or stated in such maps, charts or plans, are themselves relevant facts.”
Meaning of the section – Section 36 of Indian Evidence Act
The section means that statements of facts made in maps, charts, and plans are relevant facts if they are:
-
- Statements of facts in issue or relevant facts.
- Made in published maps or charts generally offered for public sale.
- Made in maps or plans made under the authority of the Central Government or any State Government.
- As to matters usually represented or stated in such maps, charts, or plans.
Examples – Section 36 of Indian Evidence Act
- A map showing the boundaries of a property is relevant to a dispute over the ownership of the property.
- A chart showing the population of a city is relevant to a dispute over whether the city is entitled to more government funding.
- A plan showing the layout of a building is relevant to a dispute over whether the building is in compliance with building codes.
Exceptions – Section 36 of Indian Evidence Act
The section does not apply to statements that are:
- Statements of facts that are not in issue or relevant.
- Made in maps, charts, or plans that are not published or not generally offered for public sale.
- Made in maps, charts, or plans that are not made under the authority of the Central Government or any State Government.
- As to matters that are not usually represented or stated in such maps, charts, or plans.
Purpose of the Section 36 of Indian Evidence Act
The purpose of the section is to make it easier for courts to admit evidence of facts that are contained in maps, charts, and plans. These documents are often highly reliable sources of information, and they can be very helpful in resolving disputes.
Section 36 is an important provision of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It makes it clear that statements made in maps, charts, and plans can be relevant facts in legal proceedings. This can be helpful in resolving disputes and ensuring that justice is served.
Here are some key case laws that interpret and apply this Section 36 of Indian Evidence Act:
1. Published Maps and Charts:
- Moti Ram v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1962): This case established that the map must be published and generally offered for sale to the public. A map prepared specifically for litigation wouldn’t be considered under Section 36.
- Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Jain Brothers (1970): A tourist guidebook with a city map was held admissible under Section 36, as it was published and publicly available.
2. Government Maps and Plans:
- State of U.P. v. Babu Ram (1962): This case clarified that only statements regarding matters “usually represented or stated” in such government maps are relevant. A government map showing land ownership wouldn’t be relevant to prove a specific boundary dispute.
- Kedar Nath v. State of Bihar (1964): A survey map prepared by the government under a specific statute was held admissible under Section 36, even though it wasn’t generally available to the public.
3. Scope of Relevancy:
- Ramchandra v. State of Maharashtra (1965): The court ruled that Section 36 makes the statements in maps relevant facts, but it doesn’t guarantee their correctness or accuracy. The court still needs to evaluate the map’s credibility based on other evidence.
- Krishnamurthy v. Seshagiri Rao (1963): A map showing the location of a disputed well was held relevant under Section 36, but its markings indicating the well’s ownership were not, as they went beyond “matters usually represented” in such maps.
4. Burden of Proof:
- Moti Ram v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1962): The party relying on a map under Section 36 has the burden to prove its authenticity and general availability for public sale.
5. Public Documents vs. Expert Opinions:
- Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Jain Brothers (1970): The court distinguished between maps under Section 36 and expert opinions. While maps are relevant facts themselves, expert opinions expressed on a map require further examination of the expert’s qualifications and reasoning.
These are just a few examples, and the interpretation of Section 36 can vary depending on the specific facts and circumstances of each case. It’s crucial to consult the relevant case law and legal experts when dealing with the admissibility of maps, charts, and plans as evidence in court.