Abdul Rahiman Et Al. V. Kani Umma Et Al.

Present: Lascelles C.J. and Middleton J.   May.30,1911

ABDUL RAHIMAN et al. v. KANI UMMA et al.

17-D. C. Kalutara, 4,072.

Evidence-Proof of lost deed by a translation-Not admissible-Secondary evidence-Ordinance No. 14 of 1895, s. 63.

A translation of a deed of conveyance would not be admissible as secondary evidence to prove the contents of the original deed.

Section 63 of the Evidence Ordinance is exhaustive of the different kinds of secondary evidence that are admissible to prove the contents of a document.

THE facts are set out in the judgment of Middleton J.

Bawa, for the appellants.-The document OA 2 is only a translation of a document alleged to have been lost. A translation is not secondary evidence of the contents of a document. A sworn translation can only be admitted as a translation; it is no proof of the original. Section 63 of the Evidence Ordinance is exhaustive of the different kinds of secondary evidence that are admissible to prove the contents of a document. The word " means " in section 63 shows that the section gives an exhaustive definition of what secondary evidence is. Counsel referred to Amir. Ali

Click Here to Read the rest of this document