MAHARAJ BHANUDAS NARAYANBOA GOSAVI Vs. KRISHNABAI CHINTAMAN DESHPANDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main question in this appeal is, whether the plaintiff has proved that he attained majority within three years of his filing the present suit,. that is to say, on or after July 18, 1918....This involves his birth on or after July 18, 1900. But the Subordinate Judge has held that he was really born on October 20,1899, and, therefore, his suit was time-barred.

(2.) In regard to the evidence as to the plaintiff's age, it has been strongly contended that the document marked A, on which the lower Court has mainly relied, is not admissible in evidence. This is a document purporting to be a certified copy of what is called a " transfer certificate " granted by the Head Master of a school at Paithan in the Hyderabad. State, on January 20, 1916. The document purports to be a copy of a counterfoil, showing the contents of the transfer certificate actually issued, and. the copy is made on a printed form, which would presumably correspond to that of the original. According to an entry in this transfer certificate, the birth of the plaintiff is given as on a Mahomedan date, which, it is not disputed, corresponds to October 20, 1899. Since the certified copy was given, the document has been presented to the Resident Hyderabad, and now bears a certificate, dated October 20, 1922, of the Resident, certifying that the document is a copy of a public document of the Hyderabad State duly certified by the officer having the legal custody of the original. The Subordinate Judge held that the document was admissible under Secs.3/5 and 79 of the Evidence Act. As regards Section 35 Mr. Kane contends that this cannot cover a " public servant " outside British India, and cites in support of this the doubt expressed in Ponnammal V/s. Sundaram Pillai [1900] 23 Mad 499. That section itself, however, refers to the law of the country in which such book, or register is kept ; and that would be quite unnecessary, if it was intended to cover only cases of entries in a public or official book, register, or record kept in British India. Moreover, undfcr Section 74(1)(iii) the expression " public documents " include document forming the act or records of the acts of public officers, legislative, judicial and executive, whether of British India, or of any other part of His Majesty's dominions, or of a foreign country.

(3.) Therefore, the Act covers public documents, of Native States or foreign countries. I can see no reason why Section 35 should not have a similar scope, especially in view of the words to which I have drawn attention.