Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

12. We now come to the certificate of guardianship of the year 1915. It may be noted that the defendant has produced the original certificate of guardianship granted to his certificated guardian by the District Judge, but not the application which was filed by the guardian. This certificate is on a printed form, and the note which we got recorded at the time after inspecting it would show that the words "date of birth 9th February 1906," on which strong reliance is placed in order to prove the date of the birth of the defendant are put down as a marginal note, and not in the body of the document, and they are in a different ink and pen from the earlier marginal note which given the name, parentage, caste and residence of the guardian Pala Singh. In the body of the document the period during which the defendant's minority is to continue is stated to be up to February 1926. This is the only place where, according to the printed form, there is a blank place where the age could be specified. As noted above, there are two additions on the margin in manuscript, one giving the description of the guardian in a few lines, followed by other lines giving the date of the birth of the defendant in a different ink. Apart from the fact that the note giving the date of the birth is in ink different from that in which the other marginal note is written, there is a discrepancy between this date and the period of minority entered in the body of the document. We have also noted that although there is no ground for suspecting that anyone on behalf of the defendant has tampered with the figure 1906, there is no doubt that the figure 4 is also visible at the same place. We do not however regard it is a suspicious circumstance operating against the defendant for two reasons: first, because although we are not certain about it, figure 4 seems to have been written over figure 6 and not vice versa, and, secondly, because no objection as to the genuineness of this marginal note was raised at the trial when the document was admitted against the plaintiff. The only thing that can be said is that it was not specifically admitted by the plaintiff (vide the admission of his vakil as found in the statement signed by him) and the note made by the Subordinate Judge at the end of the deposition of Mohammad Saddiq is differently recorded but it is not signed by the vakil. The fact of a discrepancy between the period of minority ending in February 1926, as mentioned in the body of the document and the date of the birth mentioned in the marginal note stands, and we find nothing suspicious in the year 1926 as written in the body of the document. This year would not tally with the year as given in the plaint; but it would still make the defendant a minor on 1st December 1905. We are not prepared to regard this certificate of guardianship, in view of the discrepancies in the year in the same document, as being of any great value or a document on which we could implicitly depend, particularly when, as will be shown later, the original application of the guardian containing the date of the birth of the defendant is not produced, and the defendant has further omitted to produce the previous application for guardianship made by his own father.