Rajasthan High Court Upholds Inquiry into 'Agreement by the Dead', Stresses Court's Duty to Discover Truth

JAIPUR: The Rajasthan High Court has emphatically ruled that courts are duty-bound to inquire into the authenticity of documents when allegations of forgery arise, stating that "truth is the foundation of justice." Dismissing a petition that challenged an inquiry into a sale agreement allegedly executed by persons long deceased, the court underscored that litigants cannot be allowed to pollute the "stream of justice" with fabricated evidence.

The single-judge bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand , in a judgment dated November 18, 2025, upheld a lower court's directive for an investigation, highlighting that every trial is a "voyage of discovery in which truth is the quest."

Background of the Case

The matter originated from a civil suit for specific performance filed by petitioner Sundar Singh before the Additional District Judge No. 1, Deeg, Bharatpur. The suit was based on a sale agreement dated April 4, 2000.

During the trial, a witness testified that the executants of the agreement, Om Prakash and Chandra Prakash, had passed away on January 20, 1995, and July 5, 1990, respectively—years before the document was supposedly created. Based on this testimony, the trial court not only dismissed the suit in its judgment on August 10, 2018, but also ordered the Sub-Divisional Officer, Deeg, to conduct an inquiry into the genuineness of the agreement.

The petitioners, including the original plaintiff, a resident of Uttar Pradesh, and a stamp vendor, challenged this directive for an inquiry before the High Court.

Arguments in Court

For the Petitioners: Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg, counsel for the petitioners, argued that the trial court's order for an inquiry was based solely on an oral statement without any concrete evidence, such as death certificates. He further submitted that a previously registered FIR on the matter had resulted in a Final Report, suggesting the issue was closed. He contended that without substantial proof on record, an inquiry could not be initiated.

For the State: Mr. Amit Punia, the Public Prosecutor, countered that a serious factual dispute had been raised regarding the document's validity. He argued that since the entire suit for specific performance depended on this agreement, it was imperative to ascertain its genuineness. He asserted that the lower court had acted correctly in ordering an inquiry to uncover the truth.

Court's Reasoning: Upholding the Majesty of Law

Justice Dhand began his order with a quote from Chanakya: “The Earth is supported by the power of truth..." , setting the tone for a judgment centered on the judiciary's role as a truth-seeker.

The Court held that when a disputed fact concerning the fabrication of a document is brought on record, it must be examined to maintain the "majesty of law."

> "If at all, a forged document has been placed on the record for obtaining a judicial order, such practice cannot be allowed on the part of any litigant in order to maintain the majesty of law," the Court observed.

The judgment extensively cited Supreme Court precedents to reinforce its stance:

- Iqbal Singh Marwah & Anr. Vs. Meenakshi Marwah & Anr. (2005): The Court referred to this case to explain that under Section 340 CrPC, an inquiry is warranted when it is "expedient in the interests of justice," focusing on the impact of the forgery on the administration of justice.

- Chandra Shashi vs. Anil Kumar Verma (1995): The bench reiterated the principle that "polluters of judicial firmament are, therefore, required to be well taken care of" to deter acts that shake public faith in the justice system.

- Dalip Singh Vs. State of UP (2010): The Court noted the rise of a "new creed of litigants" who "do not have any respect for truth" and emphasized that those who approach the court with "tainted hands" are not entitled to relief.

Final Decision

Finding no error in the lower court's order, the High Court dismissed the criminal miscellaneous petition. Justice Dhand expressed concern that the inquiry, ordered in August 2018, had not been finalized even after seven years. He directed the concerned authority to expedite the process and submit a report promptly.

The Court clarified that its observations were not to influence the outcome of the inquiry but were made to underscore the legal principles at stake. The decision serves as a stern reminder that attempts to mislead the court with fraudulent documents will be met with rigorous scrutiny to ensure that truth alone prevails.