VITHAL RAMRAO INGALE PATIL Vs. NAVALBAI DIGAMBAR DESHMUKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Advocate Shri S. S. Choudhary for petitioner.

(2.) REVISION petitioner-original defendant in Regular Civil Suit No. 24/1997 on the file of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Tuljapur, takes an exception to the order dated 30-8-2001 passed by the learned Judge pertaining to a document, "ancient document" produced before the trial Court. According to defendant, that is a document executed and registered by his adoptive father, while taking him in adoption on 8 Meher 1355 Fasli (i. e. some time in the year 1945-46 A. D. ).

(3.) EVEN after obtaining say of the other side, the learned trial Judge has allowed the application partly. He has accepted the case of defendant revision petitioner that document is ancient document being more than 30 years old. He has also accepted that it came from proper custody, since it was in the custody of defendant, who claimed that he is the adopted son. Taking into consideration that the two conditions precedent for section 90 of Indian Evidence Act to come into play, are satisfied, the learned Judge, by the impugned order, observed that the document is to be exhibited (read in evidence) for limited purpose i. e. to the extent of genuineness of execution, attestation, signatures and handwritings and every other part in the document is to be presumed to be the signatures, attestations and handwritings of the persons, who are purportedly indicated to be executors, attesters and scribe of the document. The learned Judge, however, refused to read the contents of the document in evidence. It must be said that the learned Judge not shut the doors on the face of defendants, so far as proof of contents of the document. In the concluding part of the order, he observes "the defendant is at liberty to prove the contents of said document". He has exhibited the document to the extent of presumptions permitted by section 90 of Indian Evidence Act.