Skip to content


Ponnambalath Parapravan Bavotti Haji, Karnavan and Manager of the Tarwad and ors. Vs. Karoth Sankaran Nair, Karnavan and Manager of the Tarwad - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1911)21MLJ981
AppellantPonnambalath Parapravan Bavotti Haji, Karnavan and Manager of the Tarwad and ors.
RespondentKaroth Sankaran Nair, Karnavan and Manager of the Tarwad
Cases ReferredAppathura Pattar v. Gopala Panikkar I.L.R.
Excerpt:
- .....and ishir prasad singh v. lallijas kunwar i.l.r. (1890) a. 294 that this section should not be construed in the narrow sense contended for.2. in the case of appathura pattar v. gopala panikkar i.l.r. (1902) m. 674 this court refrained from expressing any opinion on the point. whether the court should presume the genuineness of the last document is a matter that depends on the special circumstances of each case; and having regard to the circumstances proved in regard to the present document (exhibit z) we think the subordinate judge was right in admitting it as evidence and in presuming that the original of it was genuine. we see no reason to distrust the evidence of the pensioned sheristadar who proves the production of the original in 1865 during an escheat inquiry when he was a clerk.....
Judgment:

1. Mr. Rozario on behalf of the appellant contended-that as the Jenm deed of 1792, of which Exhibit Z purports to be a copy, was not produced in evidence in this case, it is not competent to the courts to draw any presumption as to its genuineness. In support of this contention he. relies on Section 90 of die Indian Evidence Act; but we agree with the view taken in the cases of Khetter Chunder Mookerjee v. Khetter Pant Sreeterutro I.L.R. (1880) C. 886 and Ishir Prasad Singh v. Lallijas Kunwar I.L.R. (1890) A. 294 that this section should not be construed in the narrow sense contended for.

2. In the case of Appathura Pattar v. Gopala Panikkar I.L.R. (1902) M. 674 this Court refrained from expressing any opinion on the point. Whether the court should presume the genuineness of the last document is a matter that depends on the special circumstances of each case; and having regard to the circumstances proved in regard to the present document (Exhibit Z) we think the Subordinate Judge was right in admitting it as evidence and in presuming that the original of it was genuine. We see no reason to distrust the evidence of the pensioned Sheristadar who proves the production of the original in 1865 during an escheat inquiry when he was a clerk attending to escheat work in the Sub-Collector's office.

* * * * * *

[Their Lordships after dealing with the other. questions that arose in the case dismissed the appeal with costs. - ED.]


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