Direct evidence required for proving talaknama contents and oral divorce; hearsay testimony was insufficient.

The contents of a talaknama could not be proved by witnesses who merely saw it executed and heard it read aloud by another person, because that was hearsay and not direct oral evidence under the Indian Evidence Act. Proof of the document required testimony from a person who had himself read it. On the separate question of oral divorce, the evidence did not reliably show words amounting to a valid pronouncement of divorce or an intention to effect an oral divorce independent of the unproved document. The alleged divorce was therefore not established, and the respondent succeeded.

---

---

Issues: Whether the alleged divorce by talaknama or by oral pronouncement was proved.

Analysis: Evidence that witnesses had seen the document executed and heard it read out by someone else was not secondary evidence of its contents within Section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act, because the contents could only be proved by a person who had himself read the document. Such testimony was hearsay as to the contents and did not satisfy the requirement that oral evidence must be direct under Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act. On the oral divorce question, the evidence did not reliably establish that the deceased used words amounting to an actual pronouncement of divorce, or that he intended to effect an oral divorce apart from the unproved document.

Conclusion: The alleged divorce was not proved, and the respondent succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: The contents of a document cannot be proved by hearsay of what was read aloud by another person, and an oral divorce under Mahomedan law must be proved by reliable direct evidence of words amounting to a divorce.

---