Madras High Court
Kunneth Odangat Kalandan vs Vayoth Palliyal Kunhunni Kidavu And ... on 13 October, 1882
Equivalent citations: (1883)ILR 6MAD80
JUDGMENT
Innes and Kindersley, JJ.
1. It appears to us that the original of the plaint having been destroyed, it was open to the Court to admit secondary evidence of the document by a production of an uncertified copy.
2. We think the clause of Section 65 of the Evidence Act, which provides that "In case (e) or (f), a certified copy of the document, but no other kind of secondary evidence, is admissible," applies to the case in which the public document is still in existence on the public records, and is a provision intended rather to protect the originals of public records from the danger to which they would be exposed by constant production in evidence, than to interfere with the general rule of evidence given in Clause (c) of the same section that secondary evidence may be given when the original has been destroyed or lost. Evidence was taken to ascertain that the plaint was a true copy of the original, and there seems, therefore, to be no substantial ground for the objection to the admissibility of these documents. No objection was taken to the decree on any other ground, and we must dismiss the appeal with costs.