Report No. 69
E. Statement of Boundary not Against Interest
12.124. Not only in a recital of boundary not against interest, but it would also appear that a statement by a person that there is a certain boundary of his land is in his favour, if at all, rather than against his proprietary interest, because he is thereby limiting the amount of land which he is selling. This aspect was referred to by Wort I. in the Patna Full Bench Case,1 where he said :
In coming to the decision on the question, apart from the authorities to which T have referred. I think T can do no better than to repeat the language of Jackson J. of the Madras High Court when he says that such a statement can be construed as against the proprietary interest only on the assumption that there are no boundaries to the property of 'the person who is the maker of the deed and he is the owner of the universe.
There must of necessity be some boundary to a man's land: and the statement that there is a certain boundary of the land which is the subiect-matter of the deed, namely. circum-scribes the interest which he is selling and therefore circumscribes the interest which the purchaser obtains in a sense that the vendor says : "I sold you this much and no more" and that if that is a true statement of the boundaries, it seems to me it is rather in favour of the person who makes it than against his proprietary interest."
Or.- to approach the matter in a different light.- when a person says that a certain other person has got land north or south or east or west of his land, he does not more than describe his own land. As Mohammad Noor J. observed in the Patna case.2 "Every man's land is circumscribed by some boundary. Every man has a limit to his land." The same Judge pointed out, with reference to the English Case of Higham v. Ridgway, that the statement of the date of birth would, in India, be admissible under section 32(2) as a statement made in the ordinary course of business in books of account, but not necessarily under section 32(3).
1. Soney Lall v. Darbdeo, AIR 1935 Pat 167 (170) (FB).
2. Soney Loll v. Darbdeo, AIR 1935 Pat 167 (172) (FB).
F. Statement must be of Relevant Fact- Criticism of Bombay Case
12.125. Apart from our comments on the case law, and apart from the principle, we would state that on the terms of the section also, the narrower view appears to be correct, because it is only statements of relevant facts, (which statements themselves are against the pecuniary interest etc. of the maker), that are admissible under the section. To regard a mortgage deed, which is not, in itself, relevant, as admissible under the section, would not, with respect, be consistent with the terms of the section.
Back
