42. Relevancy and effect of judgments, orders or decrees, other than those mentioned in section 41.

42. Relevancy and effect of judgments, orders or decrees, other than those mentioned in section 41.-Judgments, orders or decrees other than those mentioned in section 41 are relevant if they relate to matters of a public nature relevant to the enquiry; but such judgments, orders or decrees are not conclusive proof of that which they state. Illustration A sues B for trespass on his land. B alleges the existence of a public right of way over the land, which A denies. The existence of a decree in favour of the defendant, in a suit by A against C for a trespass on the same land, in which C alleged the existence of the same right of way, is relevant, but it is not conclusive proof that the right of way exists.

43 Judgments, etc., other than those mentioned in sections 40 to 42, when relevant.

43. Judgments, etc., other than those mentioned in sections 40 to 42, when relevant.-Judgments, orders or decrees, other than those mentioned in sections 40, 41 and 42, are irrelevant, unless the existence of such --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Ins. by Act 18 of 1872, s. 3. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 33 judgment, order or decree is a fact in issue, or is relevant under some other provision of this Act. Illustrations (a) A and B separately sue C for a libel which reflects upon each of them. C in each case says that the matter alleged to be libellous is true, and the circumstances are such that it is probably true in each case, or in neither. A obtains a decree against C for damages on the ground that C failed to make out his justification. The fact is irrelevant as between B and C. (b) A prosecutes B for adultery with C, A's wife. B denies that C is A's wife, but the Court convicts B of adultery. Afterwards, C is prosecuted for bigamy in marrying B during A's lifetime. C says that she never was A's wife. The judgment against B is irrelevant as against C. (c) A prosecutes B for stealing a cow from him. B is convicted. A afterwards sues C for the cow, which B had sold to him before his conviction. As between A and C, the judgment against B is irrelevant. (d) A has obtained a decree for the possession of land against B. C, B's son, murders A in consequence. The existence of the judgment is relevant, as showing motive for a crime. 1*[(e) A is charged with theft and with having been previously convicted of theft. The previous conviction is relevant as a fact in issue. (f) A is tried for the murder of B. The fact that B prosecuted A for libel and that A was convicted and sentenced is relevant under section 8 as showing the motive for the fact in issue.]

44. Fraud or collusion in obtaining judgment, or incompetency of Court, may be proved.

44. Fraud or collusion in obtaining judgment, or incompetency of Court, may be proved.-Any party to a suit or other proceeding may show that any judgment, order or decree which is relevant under section 40,41 or 42, and which has been proved by the adverse party, was delivered by a Court not competent to deliver it, or was obtained by fraud or collusion.

45. Opinions of experts.-When the Court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law, or of science, or art, or as to identity of handwriting 2*[or finger impressions], the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art, 3*[or in questions as to identity of handwriting] 2*[or finger impressions] are relevant facts. Such persons are called experts. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Ins. by Act 3 of 1891, s. 5. 2. Ins. by Act 5 of 1899, s. 3. For discussion in Council as to whether " finger impressions" include "thumb impressions," see Gazette of India, 1898, Pt. VI, p. 24. 3. Ins. by Act 18 of 1872, s. 4. 24 Illustrations (a) The questions is, whether the death of A was caused by poison. The opinions of experts as to the symptoms produced by the poison by which A is supposed to have died, are relevant. (b) The question is, whether A, at the time of doing a certain act, was, by reason of unsoundness of mind, incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he was doing what was either wrong or contrary to law. The opinions of experts upon the question whether the symptoms exhibited by A commonly show unsoundness of mind, and whether such unsoundness of mind usually renders persons incapable of knowing the nature of the acts which they do, or of knowing that what they do is either wrong or contrary to law, are relevant. (c) The question is, whether a certain document was written by A. Another document is produced which is proved or admitted to have been written by A. The opinions of experts on the question whether the two documents were written by the same person or by different persons, are relevant.

46. Facts bearing upon opinions of experts.-Facts, not otherwise relevant, are relevant if they support or are inconsistent with the opinions of experts, when such opinions are relevant. Illustrations (a) The question is, whether A was poisoned by a certain poison. The fact that other persons, who were poisoned by that poison, exhibited certain symptoms which experts affirm or deny to be the symptoms of that poison, is relevant. (b) The question is, whether an obstruction to a harbour is caused by a certain sea-wall. The fact that other harbours similarly situated in other respects, but where there were no such sea-walls, began to be obstructed at about the same time, is relevant.

47. Opinion as to hand-writing, when relevant.-When the Court has to form an opinion as to the person by whom any document was written or signed, the opinion of any person acquainted with the handwriting of the person by whom it is supposed to be written or signed that it was or was not written or signed by that person, is a relevant fact. Explanation.--A person is said to be acquainted with the handwriting of another person when he has seen that person write, or when he has received documents purporting to be written by that person in answer to documents written by himself or under his authority and addressed to that person, or when, in the ordinary course of business, documents purporting to be written by that person have been habitually submitted to him. 25 Illustration The question is, whether a given letter is in the handwriting of A, a merchant in London. B is a merchant in Calcutta, who has written letters addressed to A and received letters purporting to be written by him. C, is B's clerk, whose duty it was to examine and file B's correspondence. D is B's broker, to whom B habitually submitted the letters purporting to be written by A for the purpose of advising with him thereon. The opinions of B, C and D on the question whether the letter is in the handwriting of A are relevant, though neither B, C nor D ever saw A write.

48. Opinion as to existence of right or custom, when relevant.

48. Opinion as to existence of right or custom, when relevant.- When the Court has to form an opinion as to the existence of any general custom or right, the opinions, as to the existence of such custom or right, of persons who would be likely to know of its existence if it existed, are relevant. Explanation.--The expression "general custom or right" includes customs or rights common to any considerable class of persons. Illustration The right of the villagers of a particular village to use the water of a particular well is a general right within the meaning of this section.

49. Opinion as to usages, tenets, etc., when relevant.

49. Opinion as to usages, tenets, etc., when relevant.-When the Court has to form an opinion as to-- the usages and tenets of any body of men or family, the constitution and government of any religious or charitable foundation, or the meaning of words or terms used in particular districts or by particular classes of people, the opinions of persons having special means of knowledge thereon, are relevant facts.

50. Opinion on relationship, when relevant.-When the Court has to form an opinion as to the relationship of one person to another, the opinion, expressed by conduct, as to the existence of such relationship, of any person who, as a member of the family or otherwise, has special means of knowledge on the subject, is a relevant fact: Provided that such opinion shall not be sufficient to prove a marriage in proceedings under the Indian Divorce Act (4 of 1869), or in prosecutions under sections 494, 495, 497 or 498 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860). 26 Illustrations (a) The question is, whether A and B, were married. The fact that they were usually received and treated by their friends as husband and wife, is relevant. (b) The question is, whether A was the legitimate son of B. The fact that A was always treated as such by members of the family, is relevant.

51. Grounds of opinion, when relevant.-Whenever the opinion of any living person is relevant, the grounds on which such opinion is based are also relevant. Illustration An expert may give an account of experiments performed by him for the purpose of forming his opinion.

52. In civil cases character to prove conduct imputed, irrelevant.

52. In civil cases character to prove conduct imputed, irrelevant.-In civil cases the fact that the character of any person concerned is such as to render probable or improbable any conduct imputed to him is irrelevant, except in so far as such character appears from facts otherwise relevant.

53. In criminal cases previous good character relevant.-In criminal proceedings the fact that the person accused is of a good character is relevant.

1*[54. Previous bad character not relevant, except in reply.-In criminal proceedings the fact that the accused person has a bad character is irrelevant, unless evidence has been given that he has a good character, in which case it becomes relevant. Explanation 1.--This section does not apply to cases in which the bad character of any person is itself a fact in issue. Explanation 2.--A previous conviction is relevant as evidence of bad character.]

55. Character as affecting damages.-In civil cases the fact that the character of any person is such as to affect the amount of damages which he ought to receive, is relevant. Explanation.--In sections 52, 53, 54 and 55, the word "character" includes both reputation and disposition; but, 2*[except as provided in section 54], evidence may be given only of general reputation and general disposition, and not of particular acts by which reputation or disposition were shown. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Subs. by Act 3 of 1891, s. 6, for the original section. 2. Ins. by s. 7, ibid.

56. Fact judicially noticeable need not be proved. No fact of which the Court will take judicial notice need be proved.

57. Facts of which Court must take judicial notice. The Court shall take judicial notice of the following facts:-- 1*[(1) All laws in force in the territory of India;] (2) All public Acts passed or hereafter to be passed by Parliament 2*[of the United Kingdom], and all local and personal Acts directed by Parliament 2*[of the United Kingdom] to be judicially noticed; (3) Articles of War for 3*[the Indian] Army 4*[Navy or Air Force]; 5*[(4) The course of proceeding of Parliament of the United Kingdom, of the Constituent Assembly of India, of Parliament and of the legislatures established under any laws for the time being in force in a Province or in the States;] (5) The accession and the sign manual of the Sovereign for the time being of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland: (6) All seals of which English Courts take judicial notice; the seals of all the 6*[Courts in 7*[India]] and of all Courts out of 7*[India] established by the authority of 8*[the Central Government or the Crown Representative]: the seals of Courts of Admiralty and Maritime Jurisdiction and of Notaries Public, and all seals which any person --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Subs. by the A. O. 1950 for the former para. 2. Ins. ibid. 3. Subs., ibid., for "Her Majesty's". 4. Subs. by Act 10 of 1927, s. 2 and Sch. I, for "or Navy". 5. Subs. by the A. O. 1950 for the former para. (4). 6. Subs. by the A. O. 1948 for "Courts of British India". 7. Subs. by Act 3 of 1951, s. 3 and Sch., for "the States". 8. Subs. by the A. O. 1937 for "the G. G. or any L. G. in Council". 38 is authorized to use by 1*[the Constitution or an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom or an] Act or Regulation having the force of law in 2*[India]; (7) The accession to office, names, titles, functions and signatures of the persons filling for the time being any public office in any State, if the fact of their appointment to such office is notified in 3*[any Official Gazette]; (8) The existence, title and national flag of every State or Sovereign recognized by 4*[the Government of India]; (9) The divisions of time, the geographical divisions of the world, and public festivals, fasts and holidays notified in the Official Gazette; (10) The territories under the dominion of 4*[the Government of India]; (11) The commencement, continuance and termination of hostilities between 4*[the Government of India] and any other State or body of persons; (12) The names of the members and officers of the Court and of their deputies and subordinate offices and assistants, and also of all officers acting in execution of its process, and of all advocates, attorneys, proctors, vakils, pleaders and other persons authorized by law to appear or act before it; (13) The rule of the road 5*[on land or at sea]. In all these cases and also on all matters of public history, literature, science or art, the Court may resort for its aid to appropriate books or documents of reference. If the Court is called upon by any person to take judicial notice of any fact, it may refuse to do so unless and until such person produces any such book or document as it may consider necessary to enable it to do so.

58. Facts admitted need not be proved. No fact need be proved in any proceeding which the parties thereto their agents agree to admit at the hearing, or which, before --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Subs. by the A. O. 1950 for "any Act of Parliament or other". 2. Subs. by Act 3 of 1951, s. 3 and Sch., for "the States". 3. Subs. by the A. O. 1937 for "the Gazette of India or in the Official Gazette of any L. G." 4. Subs. by the A. O. 1950 for "the British Crown". 5. Ins. by Act 18 of 1872, s. 5. 29 the hearing, they agree to admit by any writing under their hands, or which by any rule of pleading in force at the time they are deemed to have admitted by their pleadings: Provided that the Court may, in its discretion, require the facts admitted to be proved otherwise than by such admissions.

59. Proof of facts by oral evidence. All facts, except the contents of documents, may be proved by oral evidence.

60. Oral evidence must be direct. Oral evidence must, in all cases whatever, be direct; that is to say-- if it refers to a fact which could be seen, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he saw it; if it refers to a fact which could be heard, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he heard it; if it refers to a fact which could be perceived by any other sense or in any other manner, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he perceived it by that sense or in that manner; if it refers to an opinion or to the grounds on which that opinion is held, it must be the evidence of the person who holds that opinion on those grounds: Provided that the opinions of experts expressed in any treatise commonly offered for sale, and the grounds on which such opinions are held, may be proved by the production of such treatises if the author is dead or cannot be found, or has become incapable of giving evidence, or cannot be called as a witness without an amount of delay or expense which the Court regards as unreasonable: Provided also that, if oral evidence refers to the existence or condition of any material thing other than a document, the Court may, if it thinks fit, require the production of such material thing for its inspection.

61. Proof of contents of documents. The contents of documents may be proved either by primary or by secondary evidence.

62. Primary evidence. Primary evidence means the document itself produced for the inspection of the Court.

Explanation 1.--Where a document is executed in several parts, each part is primary evidence of the document: Where a document is executed in counterpart, each counterpart being executed by one or some of the parties only, each counterpart is primary evidence as against the parties executing it.

Explanation 2.--Where a number of documents are all made by one uniform process, as in the case of printing, lithography or photography, each is primary evidence of the contents of the rest; but, where they are all copies of a common original, they are not primary evidence of the contents of the original. Illustration A person is shown to have been in possession of a number of placards, all printed at one time from one original. Any one of the placards is primary evidence of the contents of any other, but no one of them is primary evidence of the contents of the original.

63. Secondary evidence. Secondary evidence means and includes-- (1) certified copies given under the provisions hereinafter contained; 1* (2) copies made from the original by mechanical processes which in themselves insure the accuracy of the copy, and copies compared with such copies; (3) copies made from or compared with the original; (4) counterparts of documents as against the parties who did not execute them; (5) oral accounts of the contents of a document given by some person who has himself seen it. Illustrations (a) A photograph of an original is secondary evidence of its contents, though the two have not been compared, if it is proved that the thing photographed was the original. (b) A copy compared with a copy of a letter made by a copying machine is secondary evidence of the contents of the letter, if it is shown that the copy made by the copying machine was made from the original. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. See s. 76, infra. 31 (c) A copy transcribed from a copy, but afterwards compared with the original, is secondary evidence; but the copy not so compared is not secondary evidence of the original, although the copy from which it was transcribed was compared with the original. (d) Neither an oral account of a copy compared with the original, nor an oral account of a photograph or machine-copy of the original, is secondary evidence of the original.

64. Proof of documents by primary evidence. Documents must be proved by primary evidence except in the cases hereinafter mentioned.

65. Cases in which secondary evidence relating to documents may be given.

65. Cases in which secondary evidence relating to documents may be given. Secondary evidence may be given of the existence, condition or contents of a document in the following cases:-- (a) when the original is shown or appears to be in the possession or power-- of the person against whom the document is sought to be proved, or of any person out of reach of, or not subject to, the process of the Court, or of any person legally bound to produce it, and when, after the notice mentioned in section 66, such person does not produce it; (b) when the existence, condition or contents of the original have been proved to be admitted in writing by the person against whom it is proved or by his representative in interest; (c) when the original has been destroyed or lost, or when the party offering evidence of its contents cannot, for any other reason not arising from his own default or neglect, produce it in reasonable time; (d) when the original is of such a nature as not to be easily movable; (e) when the original is a public document within the meaning of section 74; (f) when the original is a document of which a certified copy is permitted by this Act, or by any other law in force in 1*[India] to be given in evidence; 2* --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Subs. by Act 3 of 1951, s. 3 and Sch., for "the States". 2. Cf. the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891 (18 of 1891), s. 4. 32 (g) when the originals consist of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot conveniently be examined in Court and the fact to be proved is the general result of the whole collection. In cases (a), (c) and (d), any secondary evidence of the contents of the document is admissible. In case (b), the written admission is admissible. In case (e) or (f), a certified copy of the document, but no other kind of secondary evidence, is admissible. In case (g), evidence may be given as to the general result of the documents by any person who has examined them, and who is skilled in the examination of such documents.

66. Rules as to notice to produce. Secondary evidence of the contents of the documents referred to in section 65, clause (a), shall not be given unless the party proposing to give such secondary evidence has previously given to the party in whose possession or power the document is, 1*[or to his attorney or pleader,] such notice to produce it as is prescribed by law; and if no notice is prescribed by law, then such notice as the Court considers reasonable under the circumstances of the case: Provided that such notice shall not be required in order to render secondary evidence admissible in any of the following cases, or in any other case in which the Court thinks fit to dispense with it:-- (1) when the document to be proved is itself a notice; (2) when, from the nature of the case, the adverse party must know that he will be required to produce it; (3) when it appears or is proved that the adverse party has obtained possession of the original by fraud or force; (4) when the adverse party or his agent has the original in Court; (5) when the adverse party or his agent has admitted the loss of the document; (6) when the person in possession of the document is out of reach of, or not subject to, the process of the Court.

67. Proof of signature and handwriting of person alleged to have signed or written document produced.

67. Proof of signature and handwriting of person alleged to have signed or written document produced. If a document is alleged to be signed or to have been written wholly or in part by any person, the signature or the handwriting --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Ins. by Act 18 of 1872, s. 6. 33 of so much of the document as is alleged to be in that person's handwriting must be proved to be in his handwriting.

68. Proof of execution of document required by law to be attested.

68. Proof of execution of document required by law to be attested. If a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the Court and capable of giving evidence: 1*[Provided that it shall not be necessary to call an attesting witness in proof of the execution of any document, not being a will, which has been registered in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), unless its execution by the person by whom it purports to have been executed is specifically denied.]

69. Proof where no attesting witness found. If no such attesting witness can be found, or if the document purports to have been executed in the United Kingdom, it must be proved that the attestation of one attesting witness at least is in his handwriting, and that the signature of the person executing the document is in the handwriting of that person.

70. Admission of execution by party to attested document. The admission of a party to an attested document of its execution by himself shall be sufficient proof of its execution as against him, though it be a document required by law to be attested.

71. Proof when attesting witness denies the execution. If the attesting witness denies or does not recollect the execution of the document, its execution may be proved by other evidence.

72. Proof of document not required by law to be attested. An attested document not required by law to be attested may be proved as if it was unattested.

73. Comparison of signature, writing or seal with others admitted or proved.

73. Comparison of signature, writing or seal with others admitted or proved. In order to ascertain whether a signature, writing or seal is that of the person by whom it purports to have been written or made, any signature, writing or seal admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the Court to have been written or made by that person may be compared with the one which is to be proved, although that signature, writing or seal has not been produced or proved for any other purpose. The Court may direct any person present in Court to write any words or figures for the purpose of enabling the Court to compare --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Ins. by Act 31 of 1926, s. 2. 34 the words or figures so written with any words or figures alleged to have been written by such person. 1*[This section applies also, with any necessary modifications, to finger-impressions.]

74. Public documents. The following documents are public documents:-- (1) documents forming the acts or records of the acts-- (i) of the sovereign authority. (ii) of official bodies and tribunals, and (iii) of public officers, legislative, judicial and executive, 2*[of any part of India or of the Common-wealth], or of a foreign country; (2) public records kept 3*[in any State] of private documents.

76. Certified copies of public documents. Every 4* public officer having the custody of a public document, which any person has a right to inspect, shall give that person on demand a copy of it on payment of the legal fees therefor, together with a certificate written at the foot of such copy that it is a true copy of such document or part thereof, as the case may be, and such certificate shall be dated and subscribed by such officer with his name and his official title, and shall be sealed, whenever such officer is authorized by law to make use of a seal; and such copies so certified shall be called certified copies. Explanation.--Any officer who, by the ordinary course of official duty, is authorized to deliver such copies, shall be deemed to have the custody of such documents within the meaning of this section.

77. Proof of documents by production of certified copies. Such certified copies may be produced in proof of the contents of the public documents or parts of the public documents of which they purport to be copies. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Ins. by Act 5 of 1899, s. 3. 2. The original words "whether of British India, or of any other part of Her Majesty's Dominions" have successively been amended by the A. O. 1948 and the A. O. 1950 to read as above. 3. Subs. by the A. O. 1950 for "in any Province". 4. A village-officer in the Punjab has been declared for the purposes of this Act to be a public officer having the custody of a public document--see the Punjab Land-revenue Act, 1887 (17 of 1887), s. 151 (2).

78. Proof of other official documents. The following public documents may be proved as follows:-- (1) Acts, orders or notifications of 1*[the Central Government] in any of its departments, 2*[or of the Crown Representative] or of any State Government or any department of any State Government,-- by the records of the departments, certified by the heads of those departments respectively, or by any document purporting to be printed by order of any such Government 2*[or, as the case may be, of the Crown Representative]; (2) the proceedings of the Legislatures,-- by the journals of those bodies respectively, or by published Acts or abstracts, or by copies purporting to be printed 3*[by order of the Government concerned]; (3) proclamations, orders or regulations issued by 4*Her Majesty or by the Privy Council, or by any department of 4*Her Majesty's Government,-- by copies or extracts contained in the London Gazette, or purporting to be printed by the Queen's Printer; (4) the Acts of the Executive or the proceedings of the Legislature of a foreign country,-- by journals published by their authority, or commonly received in that country as such, or by a copy certified under the seal of the country or sovereign, or by a recognition thereof in some 5*[Central Act]: (5) the proceedings of a municipal body in 6*[a State],-- by a copy of such proceedings, certified by the legal keeper thereof, or by a printed book purporting to be published by the authority of such body; --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Subs. by the A. O. 1937 for "the Executive Govt, of British India". 2. Ins. ibid. 3. Subs., ibid., for "by order of Govt." 4. The words "Her Majesty" shall stand unmodified, vide the A. O. 1950. 5. Subs. by the A. O. 1937 for "public Act of the Governor General of India in Council". 6. Subs. by the A. O. 1950. for "a Province". 36 (6) public documents of any other class in a foreign country,-- by the original, or by a copy certified by the legal keeper thereof, with a certificate under the seal of a Notary Public, or of 1*[an Indian Consul] or diplomatic agent, that the copy is duly certified by the officer having the legal custody of the original, and upon proof of the character of the document according to the law of the foreign country.

79. Presumption as to genuineness of certified copies. The Court shall presume 2*[to be genuine] every document purporting to be a certificate, certified copy or other document, which is by law declared to be admissible as evidence of any particular fact and which purports to be duly certified by any officer 3*[of the Central Government or of a State Government, or by any officer 4*[in the State of Jammu and Kashmir] who is duly authorized thereto by the Central Government]: Provided that such document is substantially in the form and purports to be executed in the manner directed by law in that behalf. The Court shall also presume that any officer by whom any such document purports to be signed or certified, held, when he signed it, the official character which he claims in such paper.

80. Presumption as to documents produced as record of evidence.

80. Presumption as to documents produced as record of evidence.- Whenever any document is produced before any Court, purporting to be a record or memorandum of the evidence, or of any part of the evidence, given by a witness in a judicial proceeding or before any officer authorized by law to take such evidence or to be a statement or confession by any prisoner or accused person, taken in accordance with law, and purporting to be signed by any Judge or Magistrate, or by any such officer as aforesaid, the Court shall presume-- that the document is genuine; that any statements as to the circumstances under which it was taken, purporting to be made by the person signing it, are true, and that such evidence, statement or confession was duly taken. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Subs. by the A. O. 1950 for "a British Consul". 2. Ins. by the A. O. 1948. 3. The original words beginning from "in British India" and ending with the words "to be genuine" have been successively amended by the A. O. 1937, A. O. 1948 and A. O. 1950 to read as above. 4. Subs. by Act 3 of 1951, s. 3 and Sch., for "in a Part B State".

81. Presumption as to Gazettes, newspapers, private Acts of Parliament and other documents.

81. Presumption as to Gazettes, newspapers, private Acts of Parliament and other documents.-The Court shall presume the genuineness of every document purporting to be the London Gazette or 1*[any Official Gazette, or the Government Gazette] of any colony, dependency or possession of the British Crown, or to be a newspaper or journal, or to be a copy of a private Act of Parliament 2*[of the United Kingdom] printed by the Queen's Printer and of every document purporting to be a document directed by any law to be kept by any person, if such document is kept substantially in the form required by law and is produced from proper custody.

82. Presumption as to document admissible in England without proof of seal or signature.

82. Presumption as to document admissible in England without proof of seal or signature.-When any document is produced before any Court, purporting to be a document which, by the law in force for the time being in England or Ireland, would be admissible in proof of any particular in any Court of Justice in England or Ireland, without proof of the seal or stamp or signature authenticating it or of the judicial or official character claimed by the person by whom it purports to be signed, the Court shall presume that such seal, stamp or signature is genuine, and that the person signing it held, at the time when he signed it, the judicial or official character which he claims, and the document shall be admissible for the same purpose for which it would be admissible in England or Ireland.

83. Presumption as to maps or plans made by authority of Government.

83. Presumption as to maps or plans made by authority of Government.-The Court shall presume that maps or plans purporting to be made by the authority of 3*[the Central Government or any State Government] were so made, and are accurate; but maps or plans made for the purposes of any cause must be proved to be accurate.

84. Presumption as to collections of laws and reports of decisions.

84. Presumption as to collections of laws and reports of decisions.-The Court shall presume the genuineness of every book purporting to be printed or published under the authority of the Government of any country, and to contain any of the laws of that country, and of every book purporting to contain reports of decisions of the Courts of such country.

85. Presumption as to powers-of-attorney.-The Court shall presume that every document purporting to be a power-of-attorney, and to have been executed before, and --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Subs. by the A. O. 1937 for "the Gazette of India. or the Govt. Gazette of any L. G., or". 2. Ins. by the A. O. 1950. 3. The original word "Government" has successively been amended by the A. O. 1937, A. O. 1948, Act 40 of 1949 and the A. O. 1950 to read as above. 38 authenticated by, a Notary Public, or any Court, Judge, Magistrate, 1*[Indian] Consul or Vice-Consul, or representative 2*** of the 3*[Central Government], was so executed and authenticated.

86. Presumption as to certified copies of foreign judicial records.

86. Presumption as to certified copies of foreign judicial records.-The Court may presume that any document purporting to be a certified copy of any judicial record of 4*[5*** any country not forming part of India or] of Her Majesty's Dominions is genuine and accurate, if the document purports to be certified in any manner which is certified by any representative of 6*** the 3*[Central Government] 7*[in or for] 8*[such country] to be the manner commonly in use in 9*[that country] for the certification of copies of judicial records. 10*[An officer who, with respect to 11*** any territory or place not forming part of 12*[India or] Her Majesty's Dominions, is a Political Agent therefor, as defined in section 3, 13*[clause (43)], of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897), shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to be a representative of the 3*[Central Government] 14*[in and for the country] comprising that territory or place].

87. Presumption as to books, maps and charts.-The Court may presume that any book to which it may refer for information on matters of public or general interest, and that any published map or chart, the statements of which are relevant facts and which is produced for its inspection, was written and published by the person and at the time and place, by whom or at which it purports to have been written or published. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Subs. by the A. O. 1950 for "British". 2. The words "of Her Majesty, or" rep., ibid. 3. Subs. by the A. O. 1937 for "G. of I.". 4. Subs. by the A. O. 1950 for "any country not forming part". 5. The words "a Part B State or of" omitted by Act 3 of 1951, s. 3 and Sch. 6. The Words "Her Majesty or of" rep. by the A. O. 1950. 7. Subs. by Act 3 of 1891, s. 8 for "resident in". 8. Subs. by Act 3 of 1951, s. 3 and Sch., for "such Part B State or country". 9. Subs. by s. 3 and Sch., ibid., for "that State or country". 10. Subs, by Act 5 of 1899, s.4, for the para, added by Act 3 of 1891, s. 3. 11. The words "a Part B State or "ins. by the A. O.. 1950 omitted by Act 3 of 1951, s. 3 and Sch. 12. Ins. by the A. O. 1950. 13. Subs., ibid., for "clause (40)". 14. Subs. by Act 3 of 1951, s. 3, Sch., for "in and for that Part B State or country".

88. Presumption as to telegraphic messages.-The Court may presume that a message, forwarded from a telegraph office to the person to whom such message purports to be addressed, corresponds with a message delivered for transmission at the office from which the message purports to be sent; but the Court shall not make any presumption as to the person by whom such message was delivered for transmission.

89. Presumption as to due execution, etc., of documents not produced.

89. Presumption as to due execution, etc., of documents not produced.-The Court shall presume that every document, called for and not produced after notice to produce, was attested, stamped and executed in the manner required by law.

90. Presumption as to documents thirty years old.-Where any document, purporting or proved to be thirty years old, is produced from any custody which the Court in the particular case considers proper, the Court may presume that the signature and every other part of such document, which purports to be in the handwriting of any particular person, is in that person's handwriting, and, in the case of a document executed or attested, that it was duly executed and attested by the persons by whom it purports to be executed and attested. Explanation.--Documents are said to be in proper custody if they are in the place in which, and under the care of the person with whom, they would naturally be; but no custody is improper if it is proved to have had a legitimate origin, or if the circumstances of the particular case are such as to render such an origin probable. This explanation applies also to section 81.

Illustrations. (a) A has been in possession of landed property for a long time. He produces from his custody deeds relating to the land showing his titles to it. The custody is proper. (b) A produces deeds relating to landed property of which he is the mortgagee. The mortgagor is in possession. The custody is proper. (c) A, a connection of B, produces deeds relating to lands in B's possession which were deposited with him by B for safe custody. The custody is proper.

CHAPTER VI OF THE EXCLUSION OF ORAL BY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE 91. Evidence of terms of contracts, grants and other dispositions of property reduced to form of document.

91. Evidence of terms of contracts, grants and other dispositions of property reduced to form of document.-When the terms of a contract, or of a grant, or of any other disposition of property, have been reduced to the form of a document, and in all cases in which any matter is required by law to be 40 reduced to the form of a document, no evidence 1* shall be given in proof of the terms of such contract, grant or other disposition of property, or of such matter, except the document itself, or secondary evidence of its contents in cases in which secondary evidence is admissible under the provisions hereinbefore contained.

Exception 1.--When a public officer is required by law to be appointed in writing, and when it is shown that any particular person has acted as such officer, the writing by which he is appointed need not be proved.

Exception 2.--Wills 2*[admitted to probate in 3*[India]] may be proved by the probate.

Explanation 1.--This section applies equally to cases in which the contracts, grants or dispositions of property referred to are contained in one document and to cases in which they are contained in more documents than one.

Explanation 2.--Where there are more originals than one, one original only need be proved.

Explanation 3.--The statement, in any document whatever, of a fact other than the facts referred to in this section, shall not preclude the admission of oral evidence as to the same fact. Illustrations (a) If a contract be contained in several letters, all the letters in which it is contained must be proved. (b) If a contract is contained in a bill of exchange, the bill of exchange must be proved. (c) If a bill of exchange is drawn in a set of three, one only need be proved. (d) A contracts, in writing, with B, for the delivery of indigo upon certain terms. The contract mentions the fact that B had paid A the price of other indigo contracted for verbally on another occasion. Oral evidence is offered that no payment was made for the other indigo. The evidence is admissible. (e) A gives B a receipt for money paid by B. Oral evidence is offered of the payment. The evidence is admissible. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Where, however, a Criminal Court finds that a confession or other statement an accused person has not been recorded in the manner prescribed, evidence may be taken that the recorded statement was duly made-see the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act 5 of 1898), s. 533. 2. Subs. by Act 18 of 1872, s. 7, for "under the Indian Succession Act". 3. Subs. by Act 3 of 1951, s. 3 and Sch., for "the States".

92. Exclusion of evidence of oral agreement.-When the terms of any such contract, grant or other disposition of property, or any matter required by law to be reduced to the form of a document, have been proved according to the last section, no evidence of any oral agreement or statement shall be admitted, as between the parties to any such instrument or their representatives in interest, for the purpose of contradicting, varying, adding to, or subtracting from, its terms: Proviso (1).--Any fact may be proved which would invalidate any document, or which would entitle any person to any decree or order relating thereto; such as fraud, intimidation, illegality, want of due execution, want of capacity in any contracting party, 1*[want or failure] of consideration, or mistake in fact or law. Proviso (2).--The existence of any separate oral agreement as to any matter on which a document is silent, and which is not inconsistent with its terms, may be proved. In considering whether or not this proviso applies, the Court shall have regard to the degree of formality of the document. Proviso (3).--The existence of any separate oral agreement, constituting a condition precedent to the attaching of any obligation under any such contract, grant or disposition of property, may be proved. Proviso (4).--The existence of any distinct subsequent oral agreement to rescind or modify any such contract, grant or disposition of property, may be proved, except in cases in which such contract, grant or disposition of property is by law required to be in writing, or has been registered according to the law in force for the time being as to the registration of documents. Proviso (5).--Any usage or custom by which incidents not expressly mentioned in any contract are usually annexed to contracts of that description, may be proved: Provided that the annexing of such incident would not be repugnant to, or inconsistent with, the express terms of the contract. Proviso (6).--Any fact may be proved which shows in what manner the language of a document is related to existing facts. Illustrations (a) A policy of insurance is effected on goods "in ships from Calcutta to London". The goods are shipped in a particular ship which is lost. The fact that particular ship was orally excepted from the policy cannot be proved. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Subs. by Act 18 of 1872, s. 8, for "want of failure". 42 (b) A agrees absolutely in writing to pay B Rs. 1,000 on the first March 1873. The fact that, at the same time an oral agreement was made that the money should not be paid till the thirty-first March cannot be proved. (c) An estate called "the Rampore tea estate" is sold by a deed which contains a map of the property sold. The fact that land not included in the map had always been regarded as part of the estate and was meant to pass by the deed cannot be proved. (d) A enters into a written contract with B to work certain mines, the property of B, upon certain terms. A was induced to do so by a misrepresentation of B's as to their value. This fact may be proved. (e) A institutes a suit against B for the specific performance of a contract, and also prays that the contract may be reformed as to one of its provisions, as that provision was inserted in it by mistake. A may prove that such a mistake was made as would by law entitle him to have the contract reformed. (f) A orders goods of B by a letter in which nothing is said as to the time of payment, and accepts the goods on delivery. B sues A for the price. A may show that the goods were supplied on credit for a term still unexpired. (g) A sells B a horse and verbally warrants him sound. A gives B a paper in these words: "Bought of A a horse of Rs. 500". B may prove the verbal warranty. (h) A hires lodgings of B, and gives B a card on which is written--"Rooms, Rs. 200 a month." A may prove a verbal agreement that these terms were to include partial board. A hires lodgings of B for a year, and a regularly stamped agreement, drawn up by an attorney, is made between them. It is silent on the subject of board. A may not prove that board was included in the term verbally. (i) A applies to B for a debt due to A by sending a receipt for the money. B keeps the receipt and does not send the money. In a suit for the amount, A may prove this. (j) A and B make a contract in writing to take effect upon the happening of a certain contingency. The writing is left with B, who sues A upon it. A may show the circumstances under which it was delivered.

93. Exclusion of evidence to explain or amend ambiguous document.

93. Exclusion of evidence to explain or amend ambiguous document.- When the language used in a document is, on its face, ambiguous or defective, evidence may not be given of facts which would show its meaning or supply its defects. Illustrations (a) A agrees, in writing, to sell a horse to B for "Rs. 1,000 or Rs. 1,500". Evidence cannot be given to show which price was to be given. (b) A deed contains blanks. Evidence cannot be given of facts which would show how they were meant to be filled.

94. Exclusion of evidence against application of document to existing facts.

94. Exclusion of evidence against application of document to existing facts.-When language used in a document is plain in itself, and when it applies accurately to existing facts, evidence may not be given to show that it was not meant to apply to such facts. 43 Illustration A sells to B, by deed, "my estate at Rampur containing 100 bighas". A has an estate at Rampur containing 100 bighas. Evidence may not be given of the fact that the estate meant to be sold was one situated at a different place and of a different size.

95. Evidence as to document unmeaning in reference to existing facts.

95. Evidence as to document unmeaning in reference to existing facts.-When language used in a document is plain in itself, but is unmeaning in reference to existing facts, evidence may be given to show that it was used in a peculiar sense. Illustration A sells to B, by deed, "my house in Calcutta". A had no house in Calcutta, but it appears that he had a house at Howrah, of which B had been in possession since the execution of the deed. These facts may be proved to show that the deed related to the house at Howrah.

96. Evidence as to application of language which can apply to one only of several persons.

96. Evidence as to application of language which can apply to one only of several persons.-When the facts are such that the language used might have been meant to apply to any one, and could not have been meant to apply to more than one, of several persons or things, evidence may be given of facts which show which of those persons or things it was intended to apply to. Illustrations (a) A agrees to sell to B, for Rs. 1,000, "my white horse". A has two white horses. Evidence may be give of facts which show which of them was meant. (b) A agrees to accompany B to Haidarabad. Evidence may be given of facts showing whether Haidarabad in the Dekkhan or Haiderabad in Sind was meant. 97. Evidence as to application of language to one of two sets of facts, to neither of which the whole correctly applies. 97. Evidence as to application of language to one of two sets of facts, to neither of which the whole correctly applies.-When the language used applies partly to one set of existing facts, and partly to another set of existing facts, but the whole of it does not apply correctly to either, evidence may be given to show to which of the two it was meant to apply. Illustration A agrees to sell to B "my land at X in the occupation of Y". A has land at X, but not in the occupation of Y, and he has land in the occupation of Y but it is not at X. Evidence may be given of facts showing which he meant to sell.

98. Evidence as to meaning of illegible characters, etc.-Evidence may be given to show the meaning of illegible or not commonly intelligible characters, of foreign, obsolete, technical, 44 local and provincial expressions, of abbreviations and of words used in a peculiar sense. Illustration A, sculptor, agrees to sell to B, "all my mods". A has both models and modelling tools. Evidence may be given to show which he meant to sell.