Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a recital of a relevant fact contained in a judgment not inter partes is admissible in evidence under Section 35 of the Evidence Act.
Analysis: Section 35 applies to entries in public or official books, registers or records made by a public servant in the discharge of official duty. Judgments are separately governed by Sections 40 to 44 of the Evidence Act, which codify the relevancy and admissibility of judgments in court proceedings. A judgment not inter partes, unless it falls within those provisions or some other specific provision of the Act, does not become admissible merely because it contains a recital of a fact in issue or relevant fact. The evidentiary value of such a recital cannot be enlarged by treating a judgment as a public record for the purposes of Section 35. The authorities relied upon for the contrary view were not accepted as laying down the correct principle.
Conclusion: A recital in a judgment not inter partes is not admissible in evidence under Section 35 of the Evidence Act merely because the judgment contains a statement of a relevant fact; the question was answered in the negative.
Ratio Decidendi: Judgments not inter partes are governed by the special provisions dealing with the relevancy of judgments, and Section 35 cannot be used to admit recitals in such judgments as evidence of the facts stated therein.