Skip to content


Sultan Bibi Vs. Telukula Magata Savu and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1893)3MLJ9
AppellantSultan Bibi
RespondentTelukula Magata Savu and ors.
Cases Referred and Kalee Doss Mittra v. Tar
Excerpt:
- - even if the judge, as is contended on the other side, did not refuse to consider the evidence of payment, there can be no doubt that his finding was influenced by his opinioin that evidence aliunde was inadmissible, for he himself says that he cannot 'in default of better proof than is offered accept any other evidence of payment than is prescribed in the document itself......is contended on the other side, did not refuse to consider the evidence of payment, there can be no doubt that his finding was influenced by his opinioin that evidence aliunde was inadmissible, for he himself says that he cannot 'in default of better proof than is offered accept any other evidence of payment than is prescribed in the document itself.' it is clear law that notwithstanding such a stipulation in the document evidence of payment is admissible.2. the law is expounded in the following cases : sashachellum ghetty v. oovindappa 5 m.h. c. r 451, narayan undir patil v. motilal ramdas i. l. r 1 b 45 and kalee doss mittra v. tar a ghand boy, 8 w. r 316. the district judge does not, we observe, dismiss all the reasons given by the district munsif for holding exhibit i genuine. we.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. It is argued that the District Judge erred in holding that the stipulation in the bond sued on excluded proof of the alleged payment by other evidence. Even if the judge, as is contended on the other side, did not refuse to consider the evidence of payment, there can be no doubt that his finding was influenced by his opinioin that evidence aliunde was inadmissible, for he himself says that he cannot 'in default of better proof than is offered accept any other evidence of payment than is prescribed in the document itself.' It is clear law that notwithstanding such a stipulation in the document evidence of payment is admissible.

2. The law is expounded in the following cases : Sashachellum Ghetty v. Oovindappa 5 M.H. C. R 451, Narayan Undir Patil v. Motilal Ramdas I. L. R 1 B 45 and Kalee Doss Mittra v. Tar a Ghand Boy, 8 W. R 316. The District Judge does not, we observe, dismiss all the reasons given by the District Munsif for holding exhibit I genuine. We set aside his finding and with reference to the above remarks direct him to submit a revised finding on the issue after considering the evidence on the record.


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