Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges
Acts
  • section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges
Acts
  • section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act.

    (Rai Bhaiya) Dirgaj Deo Bahadur v. Beni Mahto and others

    Lord Parker:- In this case the question is as to the nature of the Respondents' holding. It is admitted that the document under which their predecessor-in-title originally held, and which created the holding, is lost, and the only question that their Lordships have to decide is whether another document consisting of a register, as evidence of the contents, was or was not properly admitted. Now clearly this register is an official document, and therefore it is admissible in evidence under section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act. It may be possible that in the case of such a document, if it could be shown that any particular part was in excess of the official duty by reason of which it came into existence, that part might not be admissible, but no attempt has been made to show this in the present case. The document has been admitted by both Courts below as proper evidence in the case, and their Lordships see no reason to reverse or to vary that decision.

    The appeal therefore should, in their Lordships' opinion, be dismissed. The Respondents not having appeared, there is no question of costs. Their Lordships will humbly advise His Majesty accordingly.

    Appeal dismissed.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    (Rai Bhaiya) Dirgaj Deo Bahadur v. Beni Mahto and others
    (Oct 16, 1917)