Back
1917 Supreme(SC) 60
Privy Council
Ameer Ali, Sir John Edge, Lord Wrenbury, Justice Lord Parker of Waddington, JJ.
(Rai Bhaiya) Dirgaj Deo Bahadur -Appellant
Versus
Beni Mahto and others -Resopndent
Decided On : 16-10-1917
T.L. Wilson and Co., J.M. Parikh, DeGruyther
Official documents are admissible as evidence under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, unless it is demonstrated that specific portions were created outside the scope of official duty.
Headnote:(A) Indian Evidence Act - Section 35 - Admissibility of official documents - Register used as evidence of contents of a lost original document - Official document is admissible in evidence under Section 35 - If a particular part of such a document was in excess of official duty, that part might not be admissible, but no such evidence was provided in the present case - Decision of lower courts to admit the document as proper evidence upheld.
Facts of the case:
The dispute concerned the nature of a holding. The original document that created the holding was lost, and a register was produced as evidence of the contents of the lost document.
Findings of Court:
The register is an official document and is therefore admissible in evidence. There was no evidence to suggest that any part of the register was created in excess of official duty.
Issues: Whether a register, acting as evidence of the contents of a lost original document, was properly admitted as evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: An official document is admissible in evidence under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, provided it is not shown that any part of it was created in excess of the official duty by reason of which it came into existence.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
practice and procedure
-
evidence
- admissibility of official documents
-
evidence
-
property law
- title and holdings
Lord Parker:-
In this case the question is as to the nature of the Respondents' holding. It is admitted that the document under which their predecessor-in-title originally held, and which created the holding, is lost, and the only question that their Lordships have to decide is whether another document consisting of a register, as evidence of the contents, was or was not properly admitted. Now clearly this register is an official document, and therefore it is admissible in evidence under section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act. It may be possible that in the case of such a document, if it could be shown that any particular part was in excess of the official duty by reason of which it came into existence, that part might not be admissible, but no attempt has been made to show this in the present case. The document has been admitted by both Courts below as proper evidence in the case, and their Lordships see no reason to reverse or to vary that decision.
The appeal therefore should, in their Lordships' opinion, be dismissed. The Respondents not having appeared, there is no question of costs. Their Lordships will humbly advise His Majesty accordingly.
Appeal dismissed.
