MANCHALA NARAYANA MURTHY Vs. PENUMETCHA VENKATAPATIRAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I do not think we can interfere in this case. The learned Subordinate Judge in appeal admitted in evidence a lease, Exhibit H, on which the permissive nature of the defendant s possession was based by the plaintiffs. That document was not produced at the original hearing; but the plaintiff went into the witness-box and gave what, from reading this judgment of the District Munsif, X have no doubt, was in effect secondary evidence of that document which then could not be found. The learned District Munsif did not accept that evidence. But on appeal an application was put in by the plaintiffs to be allowed to produce the original document which it is alleged had in the meantime been found. It is not open to Mr. Ramesam in second appeal to argue that the document, contrary to the opinion of the Subordinate Judge, is a forgery, and, therefore, he is forced to contend that in law it could not be admitted. In our opinion this was, within the meaning of the ruling in Kessowji Issur v. Great Indian Penisula Railway Company 31 B. 381; 6 C.L.J. 5; 11 C.W.N. 721; 17 M.L.J. 347; 4 A.L.J. 461; 9 Bom. L.R. 671; 84 I.A. 115 (P.C.); 2 M.L.T. 435, a filling up of a lacuna in the plaintiffs case caused by their inability to find the document and under Order XLI, Rule 27, of the Civil Procedure Code the Judge rightly admitted it. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.