Chathu vs Virarayan

It is conceded that, if secondary evidence of the contents of the document filed as Exhibit VIII in Original Suit No. 747 of 1878 on the file of the

District Munsif of Calicut is admissible u/s 19 of the Limitation Act, the present claim will not be barred, but it is contended that, on the true

construction of paragraph 2 of Section 19, such evidence is not admissible, even though the document may be lost, destroyed or even withheld by

the opposite party. We are unable to accept this contention. We agree with the Calcutta High Court for the reasons mentioned in Shambhu Nath

Nath v. Bam Chandrashaha ILR 12 Cal. 267, that Section 19 of the Limitation Act must be read with Sections 65 and 91 of the Evidence Act and

that it does not exclude secondary evidence of contents of documents in cases in which such would be admissible u/s 65,

This second appeal fails therefore and is dismissed with costs.