ASHALATA MITTER Vs. AMIYA KUMAR DEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As I agree with the conclusions as indicated in the judgment to be just delivered by my learned brother, I do not think it necessary to discuss the various questions raised. There is, however, one matter to which I would advert.

(2.) One of the most important questions raised in this appeal depends upon the interpretation of a document which is marked as Ex. 1 in this case. This document was executed by the Registrar of this Court on behalf of certain parties under the orders passed by the Court in Original Suit No. 305 of 1907 in the Original Side of this Court. During the hearing of the present appeal before us, it was clear that the records of that suit should be looked into. We ourselves felt the difficulty and on the 25th July 1956, we passed the following order:-

(3.) On the 27th July 1956, two bundles of documents were received from the Registrar, Original Side, from the records of Suit No. 305 of 1907. The papers in the bundles were most of them unimportant petitions, some of them before the 30th March 1909, and some subsequent thereto. The original pleadings and even the decree and certain other original records were not sent up. The office was directed to make a further search. Such search proved in-fructuous, and on the 1st August 1956, an application was filed on behalf of the respondent for receiving additional evidence under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was prayed that the certified copies of two deeds which had been executed on the 1st April 1909, and the 22nd July 1909, might be admitted in evidence in this Court. These transactions, it is stated, had been referred to in Ex. 3 of this case, viz., the amicable partition between Pravabati and Mitter Brothers on the 25th January 1915.