Skip to content

Mahamud Masor Mahmud Mea Vs. Zafur Mahmud Ahd ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
Decided On
Reported in62Ind.Cas.702
AppellantMahamud Masor Mahmud Mea
RespondentZafur Mahmud Ahd ors.
evidence act (i of 1872), section 95 - compromise decree, construction of--evidence as to ordinary meaning of expressions in document, admissibility of. - .....j.5. i.....

Greaves, J.

1. The question that arises in this appeal is, as to whether a provision in a com promise decree providing for interest at 2 per cent. means that interest is payable at that rate monthly or annually. Both the lower Courts have declined to admit evidence to construe the meaning of the expression. We think the proper course is to send back the case to the Court of first instance, in order that that Court, which passed the decree, may construe the decree which it itself passed. If the Court is unable to do so unaided, it seems to us that by virtue of the provisions of Section 95 of the Evidence Act, it will be open to the Court to hear evidence as to the ordinary meaning of such expressions in documents of this nature.

2. The result is that we remand the case to the first Court to be dealt with on the line indicated by us.

3. Costs in all the Courts are to abide the decision of the Court to which the case is remanded.

4. We assess the hearing fee in this appeal at two gold mohurs.

Walmsley, J.

5. I agree.

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