Skip to content


Dinsha Kuvarji Vs. Hargovandas Govardhandas - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1889)ILR13Bom215
AppellantDinsha Kuvarji
RespondentHargovandas Govardhandas
Excerpt:
dekkhan agriculturists' relief act (xvii of 1879), section 56 - account adjusted and signed by two debtors, one of whom was an agriculturist--suit against one agriculturist--evidence--'inadmissibility of unregistered khata for any purpose whatever. - - it is clearly, therefore, an 'instrument' purporting to evidence an obligation for the payment of money within the meaning of section 56 (1) of act xvii of 1879--kanji ladha v......of section 56 (1) of act xvii of 1879--kanji ladha v. dhonde i.l.r. 6 bom. 729 . it is also, we think, an instrument executed by an agriculturist within the meaning of the section, even though only one of the executants is an agriculturist.2. the judge of the court of small causes, in admitting the unregistered khata in evidence against the defendant, who is not an agriculturist, and in making a decree thereon, has, we think, acted illegally; for section 56 of the above-mentioned a ct provides that no instrument to which that section is applicable shall be 'admitted in evidence for any purpose,' unless it is written by or under the superintendence of, and attested by, a village registrar. the use of the words 'for any purpose' shows that the instrument in question, which was not.....
Judgment:

Birdwood, J.

1. The plaintiff sued two defendants, one of whom is an agriculturist, on a khata, which contains not only an acknowledgment of liability to pay the amount due to the plaintiff/'but also an agreement to pay interest. It is clearly, therefore, an 'instrument' purporting to evidence an obligation for the payment of money within the meaning of Section 56 (1) of Act XVII of 1879--Kanji Ladha v. Dhonde I.L.R. 6 Bom. 729 . It is also, we think, an instrument executed by an agriculturist within the meaning of the section, even though only one of the executants is an agriculturist.

2. The Judge of the Court of Small Causes, in admitting the unregistered khata in evidence against the defendant, who is not an agriculturist, and in making a decree thereon, has, we think, acted illegally; for Section 56 of the above-mentioned A ct provides that no instrument to which that section is applicable shall be 'admitted in evidence for any purpose,' unless it is written by or under the superintendence of, and attested by, a village registrar. The use of the words 'for any purpose' shows that the instrument in question, which was not written and attested in accordance with the section, could not be admitted in evidence 'in any case whatsoever, not even to enforce a liability against one who was not an agriculturist.

3. We reverse the decree of the Court of Small Causes, and reject the plaintiff's claim with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //