1936 (8) TMI 6

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... iven by the District Munsif for declaring it spurious were very inadequate and on the face of the document it bears its own proof of genuineness. The lower appellate Court would therefore have failed in its duty if it had not admitted other letters issued from the Nizam's State to show that such letters do not necessarily bear the Hydera bad State seal. The defendants had no reason to believe that the genuineness of Ex. 7 would be doubted and they could not therefore have been expected to come to the Court armed with a number of other letters from the Hyderabad State to meet some objections of the Court which they could not possibly have foreseen. It is further objected that the lower appellate Court should have given the present appell .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t that would be admissible by a dead person Under Section 32(2) or Section 32(3). Although the statement contains certain admissions of liability, yet such admissions are only parts of a larger statement asserting a settlement. Reading the document as a whole, the statement is not a mere admission of liability but an assertion of the existence of a settlement such as is made by the defendants in this case. I do not consider therefore that Section 32(3) applies. The point more difficult to decide is whether Section 32(2) will make the statement admissible. Woodroffe and Ameer Ali and Nrisinhadas Basu in their books on Evidence, in discussing the meaning of the words "course of business" in Section 32(2) repeat word for word the exp .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n, and the learned Judges, while declaring the letter inadmissible, nevertheless were of opinion that if he had succeeded in proving that he was in the habit of consulting his wife before he made such loans, such a letter would have been written in the ordinary course of business. In that particular case there was no reason to think that the statement was anything more than a mere piece of information, and no evidence existed that he had ever acquainted his wife with such matters before. It could not therefore be said that the information was given in the ordinary course of business. In Sheonandan Singh v. Jeonandan Dusadh (1909) 1 IC 376, some entries were made in a register but those entries were not entries required by statute and were m .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X