Case Details

Citation(s)
1959 SLG 4442 = 1959 SLD 4442 = 1959 PLD 760
WEST PAKISTAN, KARACHI
Second Appeal No. 46 of 1957, decided on 3rd September 1959.
Presented By: Constantine and Faruqui, JJ
Appellant in person.   S. U. Panja for
Respondent.

Mst. MOSELLE ELLIAS-Plaintiff-Appellant  

VERSUS

  Khawaja AHMED SAID-Defendant-Respondent  

Law: Evidence Act (I of 1872)

Section: 86

  (a) Evidence Act (I of 1872)-----   -----S. 86-Does not relate to admissibility of foreign document-Raises only a presumption of genuineness if document bears requisite certificate-Genuineness of document may be proved by other means.   Section 86 of the Evidence Act does not relate to the admissibility or otherwise of a copy of a judicial record of a foreign country. It merely enables the Court to raise a pre sumption that a judicial record of a foreign country is genuine and accurate if it bears a certificate as required by that section. It is thus plain that the genuineness of the record is certainly capable of being proved by other means. The absence of the certificate merely excludes the raising of a presumption. The section nowhere says that a copy of a judicial record of a foreign country is not admissible in evidence unless it bears the certificate as required by it. This becomes obvious from the nature of the certificate itself which does not deal with the authenticity of the document as such, but merely certifies that the manner in which the document has been certified is the manner commonly in use in that country.   Certified copy of a judgment of the Calcutta High Court, decreeing the appellant's claim for dower, supported as it was by the plaintiff's oral statement, riot categorically controverted by the respondent, was regarded as enough for holding that the decree for dower passed by the trial Court on the basis of the judgment of the Calcutta High Court was rightly passed, although the copy of that judgment was not authenticated in terms of section 86, Evidence Act.   State v. Abdul Hamid and another A I R 1957 Pb. 86 ; Murli Das v. Achut Das I L R 5 Lah. 105, A I R 1924 Lah. 493 ; Ganee Muhammad Sarkar v. Tarini Charan Chukerbati I L R 14 Cal. 546 and In re Ruldolf Stallmann I L R 39 Cal. 164 ref.   (b) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)------   -----S. 3-Plea of limitation not raised in trial Court-Appellate Court entitled to consider question whether suit was barred by time.   (c) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)----   -----S. 14-Suit for dower based upon foreign judgment-Plaintiff also relying on…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register