Skip to content


Gadadhar Goswami Vs. Nedhiram Modak - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in46Ind.Cas.442
AppellantGadadhar Goswami
RespondentNedhiram Modak
Excerpt:
registration act (xvi of 1908), sections 17 and 49 - admission in unregistered solenama, admissibility of--solenama, whether requires registration. - .....the decision of the munsif of khatra. the only point raised in this appeal is whether the learned judge of the lower appellate court was right in excluding altogether a document from consideration on the ground that it was not admissible in evidence. the learned judge has stated that, if the document had been admissible, it would have been a very strong piece of evidence. with that view, we have got nothing to do. if the document is admissible, the weight to be attached to the statement in the document and the value of the document as a piece of evidence are purely matters that belong to the court of fact and are not capable of being reviewed by this court. but what is capable of being reviewed by this court is this. the learned judge says that this document cannot be looked at.....
Judgment:

Fletcher, J.

1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the decision of the learned District Judge of Bankura, dated the 22nd March 1916, affirming the decision of the Munsif of Khatra. The only point raised in this appeal is whether the learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court was right in excluding altogether a document from consideration on the ground that it was not admissible in evidence. The learned Judge has stated that, if the document had been admissible, it would have been a very strong piece of evidence. With that view, we have got nothing to do. If the document is admissible, the weight to be attached to the statement in the document and the value of the document as a piece of evidence are purely matters that belong to the Court of fact and are not capable of being reviewed by this Court. But what is capable of being reviewed by this Court is this. The learned Judge says that this document cannot be looked at as the provisions of the law prevent him from taking it into consideration. In that, I am clearly of opinion that the learned Judge was wrong. The document was a Solenama filed for the purpose of compromising certain criminal proceedings which were apparently compoundable. The assault which has been compounded had arisen over an ordinary dispute in this country, namely, as to possession of certain lands, and the compromise made admissions as to the possession of certain pieces of land which apparently were the matters which had indirectly given rise to the assault which was the subject-matter of the criminal proceeding. These admissions were capable of being evidence against the party who had made them. An admission does not require registration under the provisions of the Indian Registration Act. these provisions are for document which transfer or limit an interest in immoveable property. They have nothing to do with a statement admitted or denied as to possession of immoveable property. The case (sic) to the learned Judge of the lower (sic) Court to have the appeal re-heard, after admitting in evidence this compromise petition. As I have already said, we have nothing to do with what value the statements in that petition may carry before the learned Judge at the re-hearing of the appeal. Costs will abide the result of the re-hearing by the lower Appellate Court.

Shamsul Huda, J.

2. I agree.


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