Chennai Court August 1907 Judgments

Ponnambalath Parapravan Bavotti Haji, Karnavan and Manager of the Tarw ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: (1911)21MLJ981

1. Mr. Rozario on behalf of the appellant contended-that as the Jenm deed of 1792, of which Exhibit Z purports to be a copy, was not produced in evidence in this case, it is not competent to the courts to draw any presumption as to its genuineness. In support of this contention he. relies on Section 90 of die Indian Evidence Act; but we agree with the view taken in the cases of Khetter Chunder Mookerjee v. Khetter Pant Sreeterutro I.L.R. (1880) C. 886 and Ishir Prasad Singh v. Lallijas Kunwar I.L.R. (1890) A. 294 that this section should not be construed in the narrow sense contended for.2. In the case of Appathura Pattar v. Gopala Panikkar I.L.R. (1902) M. 674 this Court refrained from expressing any opinion on the point. Whether the court should presume the genuineness of the last document is a matter that depends on the special circumstances of each case; and having regard to the circumstances proved in regard to the present document (Exhibit Z) we think the Subordinate Judge was ri...