The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Sections 11 and 13 of the Indian Evidence Act regarding the admissibility of statements in evidence.

S. R. DAS GUPTA, C. J.

( 1 ) THE only point which has to be considered in this appeal is whether or not the lower appellate court was wrong in admitting in evidence statements contained in two Exhibits, being Ex. 58 and 59 in the suit.

( 2 ) THE case of the plaintiffs in the suit was that they were the owners of the suit plot marked A B c D E F and situated in Uppar Lane, Hukkeri, Belgium District. The defendants deny the title of the plaintiffs. In support of their case the plaintiffs produced the said Exhibits, being Exhibit 58 and Exhibit 59. Ex. 58 is dated 12-1-40 and Ex. 59 is dated 13-4-46. Ex. 58 is a sale-deed executed by one Appiah and his minor sons in favour of the plaintiffs. The subject matter of the said sale deed was a plot of land situated to south of the land in question in this suit. In that document it was recited that the northern boundary of the said land was a plot owned by the plaintiffs. Ex. 59 was a rent note executed by one Falcru in favour of plaintiff No. 1. In this document also there is a recital to the effect that the site in question in this suit was to the east of his land and is owned by the plaintiffs. The lower appellate Court admitted these statements in evidence as against the defendants. The lower appellate Court also has taken into consideration these statements and the other evidence which was given in favour of the plaintiffs' title and has held that the plaintiffs have established their title to the suit land. The said Court passed a decree in favour of the plaintiffs. It should be mentioned that the trial Court had come to an opposite conclusion and had dismissed the suit. This appeal has been filed against the said decision of the lower appellate Court.

( 3 ) AS I mentioned before, the only question raised in tin's appeal was whether or not the lower appellate Court was wrong in admitting the said statements contained in Exs. 58 and 59. The learned Advocate for the appellants contended before us that those statements were inadmissible in evidence. The only sections of the Indian Evidence Act according to him, which can be thought of for the purpose of deciding whether or not these statements are admissible in evidence are Sections 11, 13 and 32 of the Indian Evidence Act. The learned Advocate contended that the statements in question are not admissible under any one o the said sections.

( 4 ) THE 'contention of the learned Advocate for the respondents, on the other hand, was that the statements in question were admissible either under Section 11 or under Section 13 of the Indian evidence Act. It should be mentioned at the very outset that the question whether or not the said statements are admissible under Section 32 of the Evidence Act does not "rise for consideration in' this case, as the executants of the documents are alive and they were not called to give evidence in this case and it has not been shown that their attendance could jiot be procured without an amount of delay or expense which, in the circumstances of the case, was unreasonable. It is therefore not necessary to consider as to whether or not the statements in question are admissible under Section 32 of the Evidence Act.

( 5 ) THE only sections therefore which have to he considered are Section 11 and Section 13 of the evidence Act. I shall first take up Sec, 11 and determine whether or not the statements in question fall within the said section and are admissible. Section 11 reads as follows;

"11. Facts not otherwise relevant are relevant (1) if they are inconsistent with any fact in issue or relevant fact: (2) if by themselves or in connection with any other facts they make the existence or non-existence of any fact in issue or relevant fact highly probable or improbable. "

The learned Advocate for the respondents strenuously urged before us that the said statements contained in Ex?. 58 and 59 are admissible under Sub-section (2) of this section. He contended that the fact that the statements were made by perso

Click Here to Read the rest of this document