KARUPPANNA GOUNDER Vs. KOLANDASWAMI GOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) During the course or the trial of O. S. No. 195 of 1950 on the file of the District Munsif of Karur, the plaintiffs attempted to adduce in evidence a certified copy of a registered partition deed entered into on 22-5-188C among various individuals. Before this was done, the plaintiffs had asked defendants 3 and 4 to produce the original partition deed but the same had not been com plied with. A registration copy was therefore sought to be let in. Defendants 1 and 2 contended that since the registration copy was not thirty years old it should be proved strictly like the original and the presumption under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act could not be drawn in this case.

(2.) The executants and the attestors of the original partition deed are dead and it was not possible to prove the same by direct oral evidence. The learned District Munsif relied upon a decision in -'Venkataratnam v. Sitaramayya', where a Bench of this Court held that in view of the decision of the Privy Council in -- 'Basant Singh v. Brijraj Saran Singh', AIR 1935 PC 132 (B), the view expressed in the Full Bench in -- 'Subrahmanya Somayajulu v. Seeth-ayya', AIR 1923 Mad I (C) that the presumption under Section 90 of the Evidence Act with regard to documents thirty years old arises in the case of copies as well as originals, and that if a copy is found to be a true copy, a presumption may be of the genuineness of the original itself is no longer good law, and that the party relying on such a copy must prove the execution of the original in some way known to law at least by approved circumstantial evidence. The learned District Munsif also extracted a passage from the judgment of the Privy Council and held that where a copy of a document purported to be thirty years old is produced it can be admitted in evidence only if the proof of the execution of the original is shown in some way known to law at least by approved circumstantial evidence. The trial Court had also held that the three unregistered lease deeds which were sought to be admitted were also inadmissible.

(3.) In revision the question of the admissibility of the unregistered lease deeds is not seriously pressed, and therefore it remains to consider only the validity of the lower Court's order upholding the objection by the defendants that a certified copy of the partition deed is not admissible in evidence.