Skip to content


Chathu Vs. Virarayen Alias Cheria Thambiran Avergal - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLimitation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1892)IIMLJ253
AppellantChathu
RespondentVirarayen Alias Cheria Thambiran Avergal
Cases ReferredShambhu Nath Nath v. Ram
Excerpt:
- .....barred; but it is contended that on the true construction of para. 2 of section 19 such evidence is not admissible even though the document may be lost, destroyed or even withheld by the opposite party. we are unable to accept this contention. we agree with the calcutta high court, for the reasons mentioned in shambhu nath nath v. ram, chandra shaha i. l. r 12 c 267, that section 19 of the limitation act must be read with sections 65 and 91 of the evidence act and that it does not exclude secondary evidence of contents of documents in cases in which such would be admissible under section 65.2. this second appeal fails therefore and is dismissed with costs.
Judgment:

1. It is conceded that if secondary evidence of the contents of the document filed as Exh. VIII in O. S. No. 747 of 1878 on the file of the District Munsif of Calicut is admissible under Section 19 of the Limitation Act, the present claim will not be barred; but it is contended that on the true construction of para. 2 of Section 19 such evidence is not admissible even though the document may be lost, destroyed or even withheld by the opposite party. We are unable to accept this contention. We agree with the Calcutta High Court, for the reasons mentioned in Shambhu Nath Nath v. Ram, Chandra Shaha I. L. R 12 C 267, that Section 19 of the Limitation Act must be read with Sections 65 and 91 of the Evidence Act and that it does not exclude secondary evidence of contents of documents in cases in which such would be admissible under Section 65.

2. This second appeal fails therefore and is dismissed with costs.


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