SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1924 Supreme(Mad) 347

DEVADOSS
K. Latchayya Subudhi – Appellant
Versus
V. Seetaramayya – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Devadoss, J.

1. The point argued in this appeal is that the learned Judge was wrong in excluding from consideration, Exhibit A, relied on, by the plaintiff in support of his claim. The plaintiff is the appellant here. The learned District Judge, though he held that he could not exclude Exhibit A, from the record, held that inasmuch as it was a copy of a copy, he could not hold that the contents of the document were relevant. The document, Exhibit A, purports to be a copy of a document in the Taluq office. The plaintiff, who claimed to have had a grant of the land on darkast, in the year 1894, relied upon Exhibit A, as evidence of the grant in 1894. This document was put in evidence, in the proceedings previous to the institution of the suit. In the plaint, he relied upon this document and, when it was produced in Court and filed, no objection was taken by the defendant to its reception, on the ground that it was not a proper copy. The plaintiffs succeeded in the first Court and the defendant appealed to the District Court. Even in the memorandum of appeal, he did not take exception to this document. Evidently this objection was raised at the time, when the appeal was argued,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top