Skip to content


Kishori Lal Goswami Vs. Rakhal Das Banerjee - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1904)ILR31Cal155
AppellantKishori Lal Goswami
RespondentRakhal Das Banerjee
Cases ReferredKameshwar Pershad v. Amanutulla
Excerpt:
evidence - secondary evidence, admissibility of--objection to reception of secondary evidence in appellate court--evidence act (i of 1872) sections 61, 65 & 66. - .....establish that, if no objection has been taken in the court below, under such circumstances as the present the objection should not be allowed in the appellate court. if the case just cited to us, kameshwar pershad v. amanutulla (1898) i.l.r. 26 calc. 53, lays down an opposite view, with every respect i dissent.2. the case must go back with the intimation of our opinion that, under the circumstances, the certified copy of the jesse in question was properly admitted, and the case must be heard having regard to it. what the effect of the lease may be we cannot say.3. it was conceded by the appellant that the appeal as regards kedar's share must be dismissed with proportionate cost.4. the rest of the case must, therefore, go back and the proportionate costs of that part of the appeal will.....
Judgment:

Francies W. Maclean, C.J.

1. I rest my decision upon one circumstance, namely, that no objection having been taken in the first Court to the reception of the certified copy of the lease in question by the present respondent, the lower Appellate Court ought not to have allowed it to be taken in that Court. The first Court was satisfied that a case had been made out for the admission of this document as secondary evidence, and admitted it without objection by the present appellant, and the suit proceeded, the authorities in this court establish that, if no objection has been taken in the Court below, under such circumstances as the present the objection should not be allowed in the Appellate Court. If the case just cited to us, Kameshwar Pershad v. Amanutulla (1898) I.L.R. 26 Calc. 53, lays down an opposite view, with every respect I dissent.

2. The case must go back with the intimation of our opinion that, under the circumstances, the certified copy of the Jesse in question was properly admitted, and the case must be heard having regard to it. What the effect of the lease may be we cannot say.

3. It was conceded by the appellant that the appeal as regards Kedar's share must be dismissed with proportionate cost.

4. The rest of the case must, therefore, go back and the proportionate costs of that part of the appeal will abide the result.


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