Skip to content


Lala Asharfi Lal Vs. Musammat Nanhi and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in64Ind.Cas.11
AppellantLala Asharfi Lal
RespondentMusammat Nanhi and ors.
Excerpt:
evidence act (i of 1872), section 70 - pleadings--attestation--admission--proof. - - that section, placed where it is amongst the sections which provide for the sailing of attesting witnesses, clearly could only have been intended to dispense with calling such witnesses and with proving formal execution in a case where the party has admitted it. ) 125.]. the appeal is well-founded and must be allowed and the decree of the first court restored with costs here and below......appears to have been overlooked in the courts below, provides that the admission of a party to an attested document of its execution by himself shall be sufficient proof of its execution as against him, though it be a document required by law to be attested. that section, placed where it is amongst the sections which provide for the sailing of attesting witnesses, clearly could only have been intended to dispense with calling such witnesses and with proving formal execution in a case where the party has admitted it. we are not prepared to hold that that section is limited to an admission made in the course of a suit, but that is immaterial for this purpose [vide jogendra nath v. nitai churn 7 c.w.n. 384. and abdul karim. v. salimun 27 c. 190 : 14 ind. dec. (n.s.) 125.]. the appeal is.....
Judgment:

1. We think this appeal must be allowed, The finding of fact is that none of the attesting witnesses saw the executants put their signatures on the deeds. We cannot interfere with this finding. It seems to us somewhat narrow and pedantic, inasmuch as they were present and one would have thought that it was not unreasonable to presume that they saw what they were there to see ; but this question is irrelevant. It does not matter whether they proved it or whether they did not. There is an admission of the execution of this document on the pleadings in the case and Section 70 of the Evidence Act, which appears to have been overlooked in the Courts below, provides that the admission of a party to an attested document of its execution by himself shall be sufficient proof of its execution as against him, though it be a document required by law to be attested. That section, placed where it is amongst the sections which provide for the sailing of attesting witnesses, clearly could only have been intended to dispense with calling such witnesses and with proving formal execution in a case where the party has admitted it. We are not prepared to hold that that section is limited to an admission made in the course of a suit, but that is immaterial for this purpose [vide Jogendra Nath v. Nitai Churn 7 C.W.N. 384. and Abdul Karim. v. Salimun 27 C. 190 : 14 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 125.]. The appeal is well-founded and must be allowed and the decree of the first Court restored with costs here and below.


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