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 · 168 wordsIt is conceded that if secondary evidence of the contents of the document filed as Exh. VIII in O. S. 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
para. 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. Ram,
Chandra Shaha I. L. R 12 C 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.