Issue
Reasoning
(raja) Jagadish Chandra Deo Dhabal Deb
v.
Gour Hari Mahato And Ors
(Privy Council)
| 30-06-1936
Thankerton, J.
1. These appeals are taken against two decrees of the High Court dated 8th August 1933. Two questions are involved, the first being the question of res judicata. The High Court declined to allow the appellant to go into the question of res judioata on the ground that it had not been properly raised by the pleadings or in the issues, particularly in the issues. It seems to their Lordships that the High Court was right in this view, because it was necessary for the appellant, if he were going to make use of the judgment in the suit of 1900 as res judicata to identify the subjects in dispute in the present case with the subjects which in that case were held to belong to the Rajah and not to the tenants.
2. The other point is a mere matter of procedure, the question with regard to the use of Ex. 17 as secondary evidence. That does not appear to their Lordships to be a question of fact, but rather a question of procedure and the orders made by the High Court were to remit the suits to the Court below for re-hearing after giving the plaintiffs in title suit No. 68 of 1929 an opportunity of calling for the original of Ex. 17 and considering it or, if not produced, then considering secondary evidence, if any, of the teriz; that is what Ex. 17 purports to be. Their Lordships are not satisfied that any good reason has been shown by the appellant for interfering with those orders, and accordingly the appeals will fall to be dismissed and their Lordships will humbly advise His Majesty accordingly.
1. These appeals are taken against two decrees of the High Court dated 8th August 1933. Two questions are involved, the first being the question of res judicata. The High Court declined to allow the appellant to go into the question of res judioata on the ground that it had not been properly raised by the pleadings or in the issues, particularly in the issues. It seems to their Lordships that the High Court was right in this view, because it was necessary for the appellant, if he were going to make use of the judgment in the suit of 1900 as res judicata to identify the subjects in dispute in the present case with the subjects which in that case were held to belong to the Rajah and not to the tenants.
2. The other point is a mere matter of procedure, the question with regard to the use of Ex. 17 as secondary evidence. That does not appear to their Lordships to be a question of fact, but rather a question of procedure and the orders made by the High Court were to remit the suits to the Court below for re-hearing after giving the plaintiffs in title suit No. 68 of 1929 an opportunity of calling for the original of Ex. 17 and considering it or, if not produced, then considering secondary evidence, if any, of the teriz; that is what Ex. 17 purports to be. Their Lordships are not satisfied that any good reason has been shown by the appellant for interfering with those orders, and accordingly the appeals will fall to be dismissed and their Lordships will humbly advise His Majesty accordingly.
Advocates List
For Petitioner
- Shekhar Naphade
- Mahesh Agrawal
- Tarun Dua
For Respondent
- S. Vani
- B. Sunita Rao
- Sushil Kumar Pathak
Bench List
THANKERTON
J.
Eq Citation
AIR 1936 PC 258
(1936) AWR (P.C.) 717
LQ/PC/1936/60
HeadNote
A. Evidence Act, 1872 — S. 63 — Secondary evidence — Ex. 17 — Remitted to Court below for consideration of original or secondary evidence of teriz — Held, orders of High Court not interfered with (Para 2)
Thank you for subscribing! Please check your inbox to opt-in.
Oh no, error happened! Please check the email address and/or try again.
Deleting Note..
Are you sure you want to move this note to trash?
