Admissibility of settlement letters upheld where a communication in ordinary course supported proof of a family settlement.

A letter forming part of a broader settlement communication may be admissible to prove a family settlement, even if it contains admissions, where it is read as an ordinary course communication and not as a mere self-serving recital. The court also upheld admission of supporting correspondence to show that similar letters did not necessarily bear the disputed seal, finding no prejudice from the additional documents and no basis to exclude them. The evidentiary objections therefore failed, and the family settlement was treated as proved.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Ex. 7 was admissible in evidence and could be used to prove the existence of a family settlement; (ii) whether the lower appellate Court was right in admitting Ex. 14 series to support the genuineness of Ex. 7.

Issue (i): Whether Ex. 7 was admissible in evidence and could be used to prove the existence of a family settlement.

Analysis: The statement in Ex. 7, though containing admissions of liability, was part of a larger communication asserting a settlement and asking for acts in furtherance of it. Its admissibility had to be tested under the law of admissions and the statutory exceptions to hearsay. A statement is not rendered relevant merely because it relates to a relevant fact, and a recital in a friendly letter is not an assertion of right or custom. Read as a whole, the document was not a mere self-serving statement; it was a communication made in the ordinary course of business in the sense in which that expression is used for the hearsay exception applicable to statements made during the ordinary course of conduct.

Conclusion: Ex. 7 was admissible and was rightly treated as evidence of the settlement; this issue is against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the lower appellate Court was right in admitting Ex. 14 series to support the genuineness of Ex. 7.

Analysis: The lower appellate Court was justified in receiving other letters from the Nizam's State to show that such letters did not necessarily bear the Hyderabad State seal. The genuineness of Ex. 7 was challenged on inadequate grounds, and the defendants could not reasonably have been expected to anticipate that objection or come prepared with further corroborative letters. No request for counter evidence was shown to have been made, and the record did not establish any prejudice from admission of the supporting documents.

Conclusion: The admission of Ex. 14 series was proper; this issue is against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The evidentiary objections failed, the finding supporting the family settlement was upheld, and the second appeal was dismissed with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: A letter made in the ordinary course of business and forming part of a communication implementing a settlement may be admissible under the statutory exceptions to hearsay, even though it contains admissions within a broader narrative.

---