Wadsworth, J.

1. This appeal arises out of a suit for the redemption of a Kanom mortgage. The appellant is the first defendants legal representative. The contesting respondent is the plaintiff who is the jenmi mortgagor. It is quite clear that this mortgage, which is alleged to be one of the year 1859, has not been properly proved unless Ex. A is treated as good evidence of the terms of the mortgage and is regarded as having been technically proved in evidence in the trial Court. Ex. A, which is part of a book kept in the family of the plaintiff containing details of the terms of a considerable number of Kanom demises, was alleged to be a copy of the actual document of mortgage and the trial Court gave a decree on the basis that it was an actual copy. The Subordinate Judge in appeal took the view that Ex. A was not an actual copy but was a memorandum of the terms of the mortgage contained in a book kept in the ordinary course of business and it was therefore admissible to prove the terms of the mortgage.

2. Now, whether Ex. A be used under Section 63 of the Evidence Act as secondary evidence of the original of which it is a copy or whether it be used under Section 32 as a sta