Back
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Wilson, J.
Khetter Chunder Mookerjee - Appellant
Versus
Khetter Paul Sreeterutno - Respondent
Decided On : 02-04-1880
Evidence - Proof of Contents of Lost Document - Evidence Act, Sections 65(c), 90
Fact of the Case:
The case involves the admissibility of a document in evidence, where the original has been lost. The key issues are the proof of the contents of the lost document under Section 65(c) of the Evidence Act, and the proof of execution under Section 90 of the Evidence Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the document is admissible in evidence. Under Section 65(c) of the Evidence Act, secondary evidence can be given when the original has been destroyed or lost. Since the will in question is shown to have been lost, its contents can be proved by secondary evidence. Further, under Section 90 of the Evidence Act, the court can presume the signature and execution of a document that is more than thirty years old and produced from proper custody, even if the original is not actually produced in court.
Issues: 1. Proof of the contents of the lost document under Section 65(c) of the Evidence Act.2. Proof of execution of the document under Section 90 of the Evidence Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision is based on the interpretation of Sections 65(c) and 90 of the Evidence Act. The court held that secondary evidence of the contents of the lost document is admissible under Section 65(c), and the execution of the document can be presumed under Section 90 even if the original is not produced in court.
Final Decision: The document is admissible in evidence.
JUDGMENT
Wilson, J. - I think that the document is admissible in evidence. There are two questions to be considered first, proof of the contents of the document tendered; secondly, proof of execution. Section 65 of the Evidence Act deals with the first question, and this case comes under Clause (c), which provides that secondary evidence may be given "when the original' has been destroyed or lost, or when the party offering evidence of its contents cannot, for any other reason not arising from his own default or neglect, produce it in reasonable time." The will in question is shown to have been lost, and therefore its contents may be proved by secondary evidence. Section 90 deals with the second question; it provides that, "where any document, purporting or proved to be thirty years old, is produced from any custody which the Court in the particular case considers proper, the Court may presume that the signature and every other part of such document, which purports to be in the handwriting of any particular person, is in that person's handwriting; and, in the case of a document executed or attested, that it was duly executed and attested by the persons by whom it purports to be executed and attested." Under the section the execution of a document produced from proper custody, and more than thirty years old, need not be proved, if the document "is produced." I do not think the use of these words limits the operation of the section to cases in which the document is actually produced in Court. I think that, as the document has been shown to have been last in proper custody, and to have been lost, and is more than thirty years old, secondary evidence may be admitted without proof of the execution of the original.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
