Skip to content


Ambalavana Pandarasannadhi Through His Authorised Agent, Dakshinam Karuwar Vythilinga Thambiran Vs. Kuppachi Janaki Ammal, - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1916Mad507(2); 35Ind.Cas.201
AppellantAmbalavana Pandarasannadhi Through His Authorised Agent, Dakshinam Karuwar Vythilinga Thambiran
RespondentKuppachi Janaki Ammal, ;n. Subbier and R. Gopal Krishna Iyar
Excerpt:
evidence act (i of 1872), sections 63, 32(2), 35, 65, 91 - grant, copy of translation of, annexed to report of an officer--admissibility to prove contents--evidence, secondary--entry in public record. - 1. the document, exhibit d, is not secondary evidence of the alleged purwanah of 1741 as it does not fall under any of the clauses of section 63 of the evidence act; the collector's report cannot fall under clause (5), which refers to oral accounts of the contents of a document. the appellant's learned vakil mr. muthiah mudaliar relied next on section 35 of the evidence act. under that section, exhibit d will only be evidence of the fact that what purported to be a purwanah was produced before the collector, that the english translation put before him seemed to be a correct translation and that in his opinion, the purwanah looked genuine. but the relevant fact which has to be proved in this case is the contents of the purwanah, and an alleged translation is not secondary evidence and,.....
Judgment:

1. The document, Exhibit D, is not secondary evidence of the alleged purwanah of 1741 as it does not fall under any of the Clauses of Section 63 of the Evidence Act; The Collector's report cannot fall under Clause (5), which refers to oral accounts of the contents of a document. The appellant's learned Vakil Mr. Muthiah Mudaliar relied next on Section 35 of the Evidence Act. Under that section, Exhibit D will only be evidence of the fact that what purported to be a purwanah was produced before the Collector, that the English translation put before him seemed to be a correct translation and that in his opinion, the purwanah looked genuine. But the relevant fact which has to be proved in this case is the contents of the purwanah, and an alleged translation is not secondary evidence and, therefore, not legal proof of the document.

2. Next, Mr. Muthiah Mudaliar relied on Section 32, Clause (2), The statement of the Collector made in Exhibit D does not give the contents of the original purwanah and even if it did, it would not be secondary evidence. Sections 91 and 65 of the Evidence Act make it clear that when a written grant is lost secondary evidence can be given of it only as defined by law, and there is no such secondary evidence adduced in this case.

3. The learned Judge is, therefore right and we dismiss the Letters Patent Appeal No. 370 of 1914.

4. The connected Appeals Nos. 369 and 371 of 1914 are also dismissed. The appellant will pay the respondent's costs in Letters Patent Appeal No. 371 of 1914.


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