You can grab notes for other topics from here.
It is an appeal which arises the Malay Bench (Straits settlement court) to the Bombay High Court.
Y is a money lender. S’s Father owed him money but he dies. S mortgages his house, but later claimed to be a minor, thereby attempting to invalidate the mortgage.
Section 32(5) of the Straits settlement very close to Section 32(5) of Indian Evidence Act. Section 32(5) of SS Act –Instances where statements of fact by a dead person is relevant.
S claims that he is a minor based on the diary of his father. Is the entry admissible?
The illustration under Section 32 states- Question as to A’s birth- A letter from A’s deceased father about his birth is a relevant fact. The court uses the illustration given under Section 32 of Straits settlement act to states that the statement by the dead father is relevant. Illustrations should not be used in a restrictive manner.
It is the duty of a court of law to accept if that can be done, the illustrations given as being both of relevance and value in the construction of the text. The illustration should in no case be rejected because they do not square with ideas possibly desired from another system of jurisprudence as to the law with which they or the section deal.
And it would require a very special case to warrant their rejection on the ground of their concerned repugnancy to the section themselves. It would be the very last resort of construction to make this assumption.
Their Lordships are of opinion that in the construction of the Evidence Ordinance it is the duty of a Court of law to accept, if that can be done, the illustrations given as being both of relevance and value in the construction of the text. The illustrations should in no case be rejected because they do not square with ideas possibly derived from another system of jurisprudence as to the law with which they or the sections deal. And it would require a very special case to warrant their rejection on the ground of their assumed repugnancy to the sections themselves. It would be the very last resort of construction to make such any assumption. The great usefulness of the illustrations, which have, although not part of the sections, been expressly furnished by the Legislature as helpful in the working and application of the Statute, should not be thus impaired.
You can grab notes for other topics from here.
