CASE ANALYSIS OF BABU SINGH AND OTHERS VS. RAM SAHAI
INTRODUCTION : The term Interpretation has been derived from the Latin term interpretarion which means to explain or understand. Every statute has to be interpreted by the judge the way it is meant to be understood. It is the duty of the courts to give effect to an Act according to its true meaning and it is during this process that the rules or principles of interpretation have come to be evolved. According to Salmond interpretation or construction is the process by which the courts seek to ascertain the meaning of the legislature through the medium of authoritative forms in which it is expressed.” It has been said that there is a distinction between the two expressions. As explained by Cooley: “Interpretation differs from construction in the sense that the former is the art of finding out the true sense of any form of words; i.e. the sense that their author intended to convey. Construction, on the other hand, is the drawing of conclusions, respecting the subjects that lie beyond the direct expression of the text. This distinction has been widely criticized. Interpretation of statute is the process of ascertaining the true meaning of the words used in a statute. When the language of the statute is clear, there is no need for the rules of interpretation. But, in certain cases, more than one meaning may be derived from the same word or sentence. It is therefore, necessary to interpret the statute to find out the real intention of the statute.
There are three major rules for the interpretation of statutes:
- Literal of Interpretation: It is the first rule of interpretation. According to this rule, the words used in this text are to be given or interpreted in their natural or ordinary meaning. After the interpretation, if the meaning is completely clear and unambiguous then the effect shall be given to a provision of a statute regardless of what may be the consequences.
- Mischief Rule of Interpretation: Mischief Rule was originated in Heydon’s casein 1584. It is the rule of purposive construction because the purpose of this statute is most important while applying this rule. It is known as Heydon’s rule because it was given by Lord Poke in Heydon’s case in 1584. It is called as mischief rule because the focus is on curing the mischief.
- Golden Rule of Interpretation: It is known as the golden rule because it solves all the problems of interpretation. The rule says that to start with we shall go by the literal rule, however, if the interpretation given through the literal rule leads to some or any kind of ambiguity, injustice, inconvenience, hardship, inequity, then in all such events the literal meaning shall be discarded and interpretation shall be done in such a manner that the purpose of the legislation is fulfilled.While taking care of all these points there was a judgement given by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Babu Rao Singh & ors vs Ram Sahai @ Ram Singh in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India interpreted the Section 69 of the Indian Evidence Act and the facts of the case and the judgement are been discussed further.
INTERPRETATION IN THE CASE OF BABU SINGH AND OTHER V RAM SAHAI
The Interpretation rule which was applied in the case of Babu Singh and other V Ram Sahai is the literal rule of the interpretation before talking about what was interpreted in the case. Firstly, we should understand about the literal meaning of the Interpretation. So, the Literal rule of the interpretation refers as the rule of the Interpretation Literal Rule – The purpose of interpretation is always to find out what the statue basically aims for that what was the main aim and objective behind the creation of the statue. The basic principle of the construction of statutes is that, the words should be understandable as per the literal concept means it should be understandable as what has been written in statue and what has been drafted by the Legislation. The Literal Rule is the basic rule or a fundamental rule which judges of the Court apply while the interpretation of the statues. The literal rule is also called as Gramatical Rule. The first and foremost step in the course of interpretation is to examine the words used in this text are to be given or interpreted in their natural or ordinary meaning. As this is the landmark case decided by the honourable Supreme Court of India as in this case the Section 69 of the Indian Evidence Act states that Proof where no attesting witness found.—If no such attesting witness can be found, or if the document purports to have been executed in the United Kingdom, it must be proved that the attestation of one attesting witness at least is in his handwriting, and that the signature of the person executing the document is in the handwriting of that person. As in this case the Supreme Court interpretated the Section 69 as the lawyers of the plaintiff raised a point during their arguments that their witness was not available and even their witness turned into hostile so considering the facts Section 69 should be applicable and the execution of the will should be in the favor of the Plaintiff because the lawyer of the plaintiff raised a point that there attesting witness was not in the jurisdiction of the country. So, after hearing both the sides of the case. Supreme Court cited in the Judgment and the judges of the Supreme Court cited in their judgment that Section 69 would apply, inter alia, in a case where the attesting witness is either dead or out of the jurisdiction of the court or kept out of the way by the adverse party or cannot be traced despite diligent search. Means they explained that if the person has died or its outside the Jurisdiction and Supreme Court rejected the reasoning given by the Lawyer of the Plaintiff that their attesting witness turned hostile during the trial of the First Appellate Court which was the High Court of the Punjab and Supreme Court said even the plaintiff did not tried such attempts to compel the attendance of their attesting witness.
ANALYSIS OF THE CASE : The Interpretation rule which was applied by the Supreme Court of India in the case law of Babu Singh and others V Ram Sahai was the literal rule of the Interpretation .If we analyze the judgment of the case the way they interpretated was in such a good manner and the judgment was cited in such a good manner that there is no chance of raising any debate , or there is not any question of fact or law .As if we look at the interpretation of the Section 69 of Indian Evidence Act Supreme Court of India as they interpretated that Section 69 of IEA that it would not be admissible if the witness has turned hostile or any other reason.This Judgment played a very significant role in the cases of the Will because it had became a precedent and this precedent helped various lower courts and High Courts in the cases where the Execution of Will became the question of the fact. And Judges applied their Judicial Mind and they went by the words of the Section
CONCLUSION: In this paper the researchers tried understand the judgement given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Babu Singh & ors vs Ram Sahai @ Ram Singh in which the Literal Rule of interpretation was applied by the Supreme Court in the interpretation of S69 of the Indian Evidence Act. Through this paper the researchers tried to explain the concept about the literal rule of interpretation which is also known as the first rule of interpretation through this case and this case has also been cited in some of the landmark cases of the recent times after 2008.