Skip to content


In Re: Goods, Chattels of Sladen - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1898)ILR21Mad492
AppellantIn Re: Goods, Chattels of Sladen
Excerpt:
eivideince act - act i of 1872, section 85--power of attorney--declaration before notary public in proof of power of attorney. - .....seeks to act. the power of attorney does not purport to have been executed in the presence of a notary public or any other of the persons designated in section 85 of the evidence act; but with regard to the execution by each of the three executors, one of the attesting witnesses has made a declaration before a notary public to the effect that he witnessed the execution of the power of attorney by one of the executors, and that the signature of the other attesting witness is the proper signature of the person bearing that name. to each declaration is appended a certificate signed and sealed by the notary public. in similar circumstances it has been held in calcutta that, inasmuch as the execution is not proved in the manner indicated in section 85 of the evidence act, the application.....
Judgment:

1. A question has been raised as to the proof of the execution of the power of attorney under which the petitioner in this matter seeks to act. The power of attorney does not purport to have been executed in the presence of a notary public or any other of the persons designated in Section 85 of the Evidence Act; but with regard to the execution by each of the three executors, one of the attesting witnesses has made a declaration before a notary public to the effect that he witnessed the execution of the power of attorney by one of the executors, and that the signature of the other attesting witness is the proper signature of the person bearing that name. To each declaration is appended a certificate signed and sealed by the notary public. In similar circumstances it has been held in Calcutta that, inasmuch as the execution is not proved in the manner indicated in Section 85 of the Evidence Act, the application for letters of administration ought to be refused (In the Goods of A. J. Primrose I.L.R. 16 Cal. 776. In arriving at this decision, Mr. Justice'NORRlS seems to have assumed that the provision contained in Section 85 is of an exhaustive character and that no other mode of proving the execution of a power of attorney is admissible. That assumption, however, is, in my opinion, not warranted by the language of the Section, nor can it have been intended to exclude other legal modes of proving the fact in question, viz., the execution of the power of attorney. I cannot see why the fact should not be proved by an affidavit made before a person competent to administer an oath. The Evidence Act is expressly declared not to apply to affidavits. Seeing that the declarations are made in the form prescribed by the Statute of 1835 and before officials competent to administer an oath, I am of opinion that they ought to be received as evidence of the facts therein stated. I am told that it has been the practice here, as apparently it was in Calcutta, to receive such declarations and I cannot say that the practice is erroneous.


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