AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
7 paragraphs · 165 wordsIt is conceded that, if secondary evidence of the contents of the document filed as Exhibit VIII in Original Suit No. 747 of 1878 on the file of the
District Munsif of Calicut is admissible u/s 19 of the Limitation Act, the present claim will not be barred, but it is contended that, on the true
construction of paragraph 2 of Section 19, such evidence is not admissible, even though the document may be lost, destroyed or even withheld by
the opposite party. We are unable to accept this contention. We agree with the Calcutta High Court for the reasons mentioned in Shambhu Nath
Nath v. Bam Chandrashaha ILR 12 Cal. 267, that Section 19 of the Limitation Act must be read with Sections 65 and 91 of the Evidence Act and
that it does not exclude secondary evidence of contents of documents in cases in which such would be admissible u/s 65,
This second appeal fails therefore and is dismissed with costs.