Horwill, J.

1. The questions arising in this second appeal are whether Ex. 7 is a relevant document rightly admitted in evidence by the. lower Courts and whether the lower appellate Court was right in, admitting Ex. 14 series to show that Ex. 7 was a genuine document. The trial Court, because the wording of Ex. 7 did not accord very well with its other findings and because it did not bear the postal; seal of the Nizams State from which it purported to have been sent, declared it to be a spurious document. The reasons given by the District Munsif for declaring it spurious were very inadequate and on the face of the document it bears its own proof of genuineness. The lower appellate Court would therefore have failed in its duty if it had not admitted other letters issued from the Nizams State to show that such letters do not necessarily bear the Hydera bad State seal. The defendants had no reason to believe that the genuineness of Ex. 7 would be doubted and they could not therefore have been expected to come to the Court armed with a number of other letters from the Hyderabad State to meet some objections of the Court which they could not possibly have foreseen. It is further