Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.19 seconds)The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Mohoram Sheikh Chaprasai And Anr. vs Telamuddin Khan And Anr. on 17 July, 1911
11. The inference to be drawn is one of law from facts found or admitted: Mohoram Sheikh Chaprasi v. Telamuddin Khan 13 Ind. Cas. 606 : 15 C.L.J. 220 : 16 C.W.N. 567; the facts established by the evidence legally admissible are sufficient to support the decree of the District Judge.
Khetter Chunder Mookerjee vs Khetter Paul Sreeterutno on 2 April, 1880
On behalf of the appellant in reply, reference was made to the decision in Khetter Chunder Mookerjee v. Khetter Paul Sreeterutno 5 C. 886 : 6 C.L.R. 199 : 2 Ind. Dec. (n.s.) 1172 and it was contended that the certified copy was admissible without proof of execution of the original. Lord Collins in the course of his judgment first observed with regard to the deed of exchange that the certified copy was produced from the custody of Shahzadi Begum and was found to be written on paper bearing the same stamp and water marks as other documents on the record of that litigation; he then proceeded to state that their Lordships agreed with the District Judge that it was admissible in evidence and for the reasons given by him adopted his conclusions as to its genuineness. The learned Vakil for the appellant has contended that the only question before the Judicial Committee was, whether or not the certified copy was genuine and that their Lordships did not decide whether the certified copy, if genuine, could be received in evidence because the parties at the original trial had contended that there was a genuine original which had been lost, and the only question thus was whether what was produced as a certified copy was genuine or not. In our opinion it is clear from the report of the arguments before the Judicial Committee that the question of the admissibility of the certified copy was expressly raised before their Lordships and was treated by them as really not open to serious argument. But even if it be held that their Lordships assumed the document to be admissible because it was conceded that there was a genuine original, the case before us is not distinguishable from the one before the Judicial Committee, because the judgment of the District Judge shows that even according to the plaintiff there was a genuine original lease.
Ishri Prasad Singh vs Lalli Jas Kunwar And Anr. on 3 April, 1900
1172, which was accepted as good law though with some hesitation by Sir Arthur Strachey in the case of Ishri Prasad Singh v. Lalli as Kunwar 22 A. 294 at p. 303 : A.W.N. (1900) 82 : 9 Ind. Dec. (n.s.) 1227.
Koylash Chunder Doss And Ors. vs Tariney Churn Singhee And Anr. on 22 April, 1884
But we desire to add that we do not in any way depart from the principle recognised by Sir Richard Garth, C.J., in Worries Chunder Chatterjee v. Churidee Churn Roy 7 C. 293 : 3 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 737., which we hold does not apply to this case.
Section 8 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Shahzadi Begam vs The Secretary Of State For India on 3 July, 1907
In view of this divergence of judicial opinion, it would have been our duty to construe the terms of section' 90 of the Indian Evidence Act; but whatever our opinion might have been if the matter were res integra, we are bound by the decision of their Lordships of the Judicial Committee in the case of Shahzadi Begam v. Secretary of State 34 C. 1059 : 9 Bom. L.R. 1192 : 6 C.L.J. 678 : 2 M.L.T. 439 : 34 I.A. 194 (P.C.) which, we think, concludes the point against the appellant. As it has been contended, however, that the point which now requires consideration was not decided by their Lordships, we must examine the circumstances of that cage. In that case reliance was placed upon a deed of exchange, the original of which bad been lost. A certified copy, obtained in 1851, was produced at the trial. The genuineness of this certified copy was questioned. The District Judge found that the certified copy was genuine and admitted it in evidence. Upon appeal to this Court, the certified copy was pronounced a forgery* and the document was consequently rejected. When the matter went before the Judicial Committee, reliance was placed on behalf of the appellant upon the certified copy, and it was argued that the certified copy was not a forgery because it bore the same stamp and water marks as other contemporary documents, admittedly genuine and produced in a previous litiga tion between the parties. The respondents contended that the certified copy was a forgery, and also argued that the certified copy, even if genuine, was not admissible.
Fahamidannissa Begum And Ors. vs The Secretary Of State For India In ... on 14 August, 1886
It is not necessary, however, to place reliance upon the rule of English Law on the subject; the question before us must be determined with reference to the statutory provisions contained in section £0 of the Indian Evidence Act; and in view of the decision of their Lordships of the Judicial Committee in Shdhzadi Begum v. Secretary of State 34 C. 1059 : 9 Bom. L.R. 1192 : 6 C.L.J. 678 : 2 M.L.T. 439 : 34 I.A. 194 (P.C), we must hold that the certified copy was properly received in evidence.
Appathura Pattar vs Gopala Panikkar on 5 December, 1901
854 possibly tend in the same direction, while the observations in Appathura Pattar v. Gopala Panikkar 26 M. 674 support the contrary view.