- SECTION 127 – Kameshwar Pershad v. Amanutulla
- Bench: Justice Rampini, Justice Banerjee and Justice Henderson
Facts:
This suit was filed in lieu of recovering the possession of an eight- annas share of Mouzah Ledha, which the plaintiff purchased at a sale in execution of a decree obtained against one defendant. The primary defendant resisted the plaintiff's suit on the ground that he is in possession of the property by virtue of a mokurari lease executed in his favour by defendant No. 2. The plaintiff seeks to have this mokurari lease set aside on the ground that it is a fictitious and collusive lease, and that the defendant No. 1 is but a benamidar for defendant No. 2, who is still the owner, and who is really in possession of the mouzah. The Munsif decreed the suit, which was appealed and then was a re-tried by the first judge again on the ground of erroneous judgement and “fresh decision point”, this appeal was again re-appealed to this court on the same ground of “erroneous judgement”.
Issues:
Whether the evidence of the two pleaders (clerks) is admissible under Section 127 of the Evidence Act?
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The appellant contended that no objection appears to have been raised to the giving of this evidence, and hence he contends that their evidence is admissible. But there is no law in this country that the absence of objection to evidence, which is legally inadmissible, makes it admissible. The evidence of these pleaders who wrote a letter in favour of the petitioner has been contended to have been wrongly excluded by the Magistrate and hence has to re considered in the administration of justice.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The contention of the respondent was that the evidence of the pleders is nto admissible in the Court. The pleaders were called to the Court to give evidence as to the contorts of a letter received by a pleader's mohurir from the defendant and since the letter was nto produced in the Court the pleaders evidence is not admissible on the ground that the their evidence is based on what the pleaders communication addressed to the clerk of the pleader. Hence, this makes the secondary evidence and the contents of the same inadmissible in the current case.
Judgment:
The Court held that the evidence of the pleaders was inadmissible because it involved the disclosure of privilege information and communication, the disclosure of which is incorrect. The evidence is therefore rightfully excluded on the part of the Magistrate. As the communication made was between the pleader and his clerk it is confidential in nature with reference to its nature under Section 127 of the Act and directs that Section 126 in application towards Section 127 includes such communication. In light of this and other issues, the Court held that the appeal is to be dismissed as there is no ground for this appeal as it holds no merit in the eyes of all judges in the case.
