Law: Evidence Act, (1 of 1872)

Section: 32(2),63(3),91

(a) Evidence Act (I of 1872)----- -----Ss. 32 (2), 63 (3)-Docu­ment lost-Memorandum in brief of document in deed-writer's register-Deed-writer as well as his register not available­ Memorandum relevant as independent evidence under S. 32 (2) -Copy of such memorandum admissible as secondary evidence under S. 63 (3). The document embodying an agreement of sale was lost. A memorandum in brief of the document existed in the deed-­writer's register who had become an evacuee. Both the deed­writer and his register were not available, but a copy of the memorandum in the hand of the deed-writer was produced in Court. Held, that the original entries of the memorandum were provable 'as evidence under section 32 (2) of the Evidence Act and copies of these original statements would also be admissible under section 63 (3) of the Evidence Act. (b) Evidence Act (I of 1872)----- ----S. 91-Receipt not covered by section-Oral evidence of payment of money not inadmissible if receipt not produced. A receipt is not in terms of conveyed by section 91 and consequently, an argument raised on t e axis o this section would be of no avail for precluding the respondent from relying on either parol evidence or secondary evidence of the contents of the receipt when the loss of the original has been proved. There is authority for the view that oral evidence of the payment of money for which a receipt has been taken is not inadmissible if the receipt is not produced. (c) Evidence Act (I of 1872)------ ---S. 91-Factum of agreement apart from its terms could be proved by oral evidence. Even if it could be held that the contents of the written agreement could not be proved, except by the production of the deed itself or secondary evidence where that was admissi­ble, the factum or existence of the agreement could be proved apart from its terms. The fact of the existence of a particular relationship may be shown by parol evidence, though the terms which govern such relationship appear to be in writing. JUDGMENT S. A. RAHMAN, J.-The land involved in this regular second appeal was purchased at an auction held by the Pro­vincial Government by Muhammad Khan, defendant 1, Ghulam Rasul and others, the…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492