1937   Present : Moseley J. and Fernando A.J.

KOWLA UMMA v. MOHIDEEN

99-D. C. Colombo, 3,962.

Foreign judgment--Action on the judgment of an Indian Court-Proof of copy -Seal of Court or signature of Judge-Evidence Ordinance, ss. 74, 76, and 77.

Where, in an action brought in Ceylon on the judgment of an Indian Court it is sought to produce in evidence a copy of the judgment,-

Held, that the copy produced must either be sealed with the seal of the Court or be signed by the Judge, who must attach to his signature a statement in writing to the effect that the Court has no seal.

APPEAL from a judgment of the District Judge of Colombo.

N. Nadarajah (with him S. Mahadeva), for defendant, appellant.

A. L. J. Croos Da Brera, for plaintiffs, respondents.

Cur. adv. vult.

November 2, 1937. MOSELEY J.-

The plaintiffs obtained judgment against one Thana Mohamed in the Subordinate Court of Tuticorin on November 29, 1928, for Rs. 1,100 together with interest and costs. The defendant died in 1929 and this action was brought in 1935 in the District Court of Colombo against the executrix of his estate for the amount due under the said judgment. The parties went to trial on certain issues, all of which were answered in favour of the plaintiffs for whom judgment was given. Against that judgment the defendant appeals on several grounds, of which, in view of the order which we propose to make, I need only refer to one. That ground of appeal is that the judgment of the Subordinate Court of Tuticorin, marked P 1 in the proceedings, was wrongly admitted, in evidence as it was not duly proved.

The learned District Judge held that it could not be disputed that judgment had gone against the defendant in the Subordinate Court of Tuticorin ; that P 1 was a duly certified copy of the judgment of that Court and was therefore admissible in evidence under sections 74 and 76 of the Evidence Ordinance (No. 14 of 1895).

Now, section 74 of that Ordinance defines what are public documents, among which, according to sub-section (1) (c), are documents forming the Acts or records of the Acts of public officers, legislative, judicial, and executive, whether of the Colony, or of any other part of His Majesty's dominions, or of a foreign country. Section 76, the aid of which was invoked by the District Judge, and, together with section 77, by counsel for the respondents, before us, provides for the certification of public documents, but the wording of the section makes it quite clear that the only public documents contemplated are the Acts or records of the Acts of public officers of the Colony. That this is so is evident at the outset where the section imposes a duty upon a public officer to give a copy, on payment of fees, of a public document which he has in his custody. The section obviously cannot impose a duty on a public officer other than of the Colony. Any virtue therefore with which the section subsequently clothes such a document is limited to public documents of the Colony. In my view, the District Judge was wrong in holding that the document was admissible under sections 74 and 76. Section 77 merely provides for the production of certified copies in proof of the contents of such public documents.

The certification of public documents of this nature of a "foreign country " is provided for by section 78 (6), but this obviously is not intended to apply to public documents of any other part of His Majesty's dominions, since the section requires certification under the seal of "a notary public or of a British consul or diplomatic agent". It seems therefore that the section which provides for the admission of a document of this nature, if properly certified, is section 82. This section is as follows : -

" 82. When any document is produced before any Court purporting to be a document which, by the law in force for the time being in England or Ireland, would be admissible in pr