Skip to content


BipIn Behary Daw Vs. Sreedam Chunder Dey - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1886)ILR13Cal42
AppellantBipIn Behary Daw
RespondentSreedam Chunder Dey
Cases ReferredSee Haines v. Guthrie L.B.
Excerpt:
evidence act (i of 1872), section 32, clause 5 and ill. (l)--hearsay evidence--pedigree--proof of birth--statement of deceased father. - trevelyan, j.1. i think the question is inadmissible. i do not think the statement of the father as to the date of the son's birth is evidence. illustration (1) to section 32 would be material in cases of pedigree; but the rule which admits hearsay evidence in pedigree cases is confined to the proof of the pedigree, and does not apply to proof of the facts which constitute a pedigree, such as birth, death and marriage, when they have to be proved for other purposes. see haines v. guthrie l.b. 13 q.b.d. 818.2. this question does not come under para. 5 of section 32 or any other paragraph of that section.
Judgment:

Trevelyan, J.

1. I think the question is inadmissible. I do not think the statement of the father as to the date of the son's birth is evidence. Illustration (1) to Section 32 would be material in cases of pedigree; but the rule which admits hearsay evidence in pedigree cases is confined to the proof of the pedigree, and does not apply to proof of the facts which constitute a pedigree, such as birth, death and marriage, when they have to be proved for other purposes. See Haines v. Guthrie L.B. 13 Q.B.D. 818.

2. This question does not come under para. 5 of Section 32 or any other paragraph of that section.


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