Back
2003(7) Supreme 664
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Calcutta High Court)
Shivaraj V. Patil & D.M. Dharmadhikari, JJ.
Narbada Devi Gupta -Appellant
versus
Birendra Kumar Jaiswal & Anr. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 315 of 1998
Decided on 3-11-2003
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Advocate, Nalin Tripati, Advocate for Ms. Sarla Chandra, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Raj Kumar Gupta, Sheo Kumar Gupta, Advocate for A.N. Bardiyar, Advocate.
Held : It has been pleaded in the plaint that certain blank stamp papers thumb marked and signed by the plaintiff were given to the defendant authorising him to represent them in various pending litigations. Even after the specific plea in the written statement of the defendant claiming status of a tenant on the basis of rent receipts, the pleadings in the plaint were not amended by the plaintiff to explain how on back of printed rent receipts, he happened to put his signatures. No consequential amendment was made in the plaint taking a plea of fraud and forgery of rent receipts. There is also no evidence to that effect. Reliance is heavily placed on behalf of the appellant on the case of Ramji Dayawala & Sons (P) Ltd., (supra). The legal position is not in dispute that mere production and marking of a document as exhibit by the court cannot be held to be a due proof of its contents. Its execution has to be proved by admissible evidence that is by the evidence of those persons who can vouchsafe for the truth of the facts in issue . The situation is, however, different where the documents are produced, they are admitted by the opposite party, signatures on them are also admitted and they are marked thereafter an exhibits by the court. We find no force in the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant that as the mark of exhibits has been put on the back portions of the rent receipts near the place where the admitted signatures of the plaintiff appear, the rent receipts as a whole cannot be treated to have been exhibited as an admitted documents. (Paras 15 and 16)
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The case involves a dispute over the admissibility and evidentiary value of rent receipts used to establish tenancy. The defendant claimed tenancy based on rent receipts that bore signatures of the landlady and the plaintiff, which were marked as exhibits in court (!) (!) .
The plaintiff's pleadings indicated that blank stamp papers with signatures were given to the defendant to represent the landlady in pending litigations, raising questions about how signatures appeared on the rent receipts (!) (!) .
The defendant denied that the rent receipts were forged or obtained through fraud, asserting that they were genuine and that rent was paid regularly, with signatures of the plaintiff endorsing the receipts (!) (!) .
The trial court initially questioned the authenticity of the rent receipts, suggesting they may have been fabricated using access to rent bills and that the signatures might have been manipulated. The court found that the defendant had access to the rent bills and failed to prove the genuineness of the receipts formally (!) (!) .
The High Court re-evaluated the evidence and concluded that the rent receipts, which had been admitted and marked as exhibits, could be considered as properly proved documents. The Court emphasized that once signatures are admitted and documents are marked as exhibits without objection, the contents are automatically deemed proved, unless challenged on specific grounds (!) (!) .
The appellate court highlighted that the burden did not shift to the defendant to further prove the writings on the rent receipts once they were admitted and signatures were recognized, especially in the absence of any plea alleging forgery or fraud in the pleadings (!) .
The court noted that the plaintiff did not amend the pleadings to explain the signatures on the rent receipts or to plead fraud, which limited the scope of evidence and argument regarding the authenticity of the documents (!) (!) .
Ultimately, the appellate court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the evidence as admitted was sufficient to uphold the defendant's claim of tenancy based on the rent receipts, and that the High Court's re-appreciation of the evidence was justified (!) (!) .
In summary, the case underscores the importance of proper pleadings, the significance of admitting and marking documents as exhibits, and the principles governing the proof of documents and signatures under the Evidence Act.
JUDGMENT
Dharmadhikari J.-The suit for recovery of possession of the suit premises on the allegation of taking wrongful and forcible possession by the contesting respondent was decreed by the city civil court, Calcutta by its judgment dated 29.6.1984. The Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta by judgment dated 12.01.1996, has set aside the judgment of the city civil court and allowed the appeal of the respondent. The petitioner, being plaintiff in the trial court, has, therefore, approached this Court in the present appeal.
2. The suit premises belong to the deceased Gokul Chand. On his death, it was inherited by his wife Ram Moni Devi. She also died and the original plaintiff-Gangadhar Halder (who is proforma non-contesting respondent no. 2 in this appeal), claims to be her successor-in-interest as the adopted son. The present appellant is transferee of the suit property from the original plaintiff-Gangadhar Halder.
3. The contesting respondent resisted the suit claiming to be in possession of the suit premises as tenant. Apart from leading oral evidence to prove tenancy, he produced rent receipts marked as Exs. A, A-1 & A-2 Agreement of tenancy dated 12.12.1970 marked as Ex-C was also produced to prove his status as tenant in the suit premises.
4. The main question raised by the appellant before this Court is on the admissibility and evidentiary value of the three rent receipts relying on which the High Court has dismissed the suit.
5. In paragraphs 8 & 9 of the plaint, anticipating the plea of the defendant, following averments are made:-
"8. That the defendant is a near relation of Anil Kumar Gupta, tenant of the northern shop room and was working in the said shop and became friendly with said Ram Moni Devi and the plaintiff and after death of Gokul Chand he voluntered to help her in various pending litigations and administration of the estate left by said Gokul Chand and said Ram Moni Devi, an illiterate lady and the plaintiff being practically on illiterate man deposed utmost faith upon the defendant.
9. That after death of plaintiff s adoptive father for looking after the village properties he began to stay at his native village at Kashinagar and in his absence for conducting the litigations at the instance of the defendant for authorising him to represent said Ram Moni Devi the defendant took thumb impression of Ram Moni Devi on some blank stamp papers and blank papers with one or two signatures of the plaintiff also thereon". [Underlining for pointed attention]
6. The defendant Birendra Kumar Jaiswal in the written statement made specific reference to the rent receipts issued in his favour by landlady late Ram Moni Devi with thumb impressions on the stamps affixed on them and endorsements of the plaintiff by putting his signatures on the back portion of those rent receipts. The defendant thus denied the allegation of the plaintiff that he had trespassed into the suit premises taking advantage of the absence of the original plaintiff-Gangadhar Halder.
7. The specific plea of the defendant based on the rent receipts contained in paragraph 16 of the written statement reads thus:-
"16. The allegations contained in para 9 of the plaint are specifically denied. The defendant have no concern or any knowledge about the plaintiff or that the plaintiff was adopted son of Gokul Chand. It is absolutely false that the defendant took thumb impression of Ram Moni Devi on some stamp blank paper. As a matter of fact, the defendant was the monthly tenant under Smt. Ram Moni Devi in respect of two rooms on the ground floor at 76, Amherst Street, Calcutta-9, at a monthly rental of Rs.100/- according to English Calender. At the time of payment of rent the rent receipts were also endorsed by the plaintiff by putting his name. The defendant further states that on the request of Ram Moni Devi, he paid Rs. 5,200/- on a pro-note dated 21.7.1971 and after receiving the said amount the said Ram Moni Devi duly put her left thumb impr
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
