Sait Tarajee Khimchand vs Velamarti Satyam Alias Satteyya

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1971 Supreme(SC) 255

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
C.A. VAIDIALINGAM AND A.N. RAY, JJ.
Sait Tarajee Khimchand and others, Appellants
Versus
Yelamarti Satyam and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 2255 of 1966, with Civil Misc. Petn. No. 2452 of 1971, D/ 19-4-1971.
Advocates appeared
Mr. M. Natesan, Sr. Advocate, (Mr. K. Jayaram, Advocate, with him), for Appellants Nos. 1 to 6 and 8 and 9; Mr. K. R. Chaudhuri, Advocate, for Respondent No. 1.

Headnote:MERE MARKING OF AN EXHIBIT DOES NOT DISPENSE WITH PROOF IN EVIDENCE
-see decision in S.T. Khimchand v. Satyam, AIR 1971 SC 1865. Once a document has been marked as an exhibit and the trial document was an exhibit in the case and has been used by the parties in examination and cross examination of their witnesses. Section 36 of Stamp Act comes into operation and the Trial Court or the Appellate Court cannot go behind the order in appeal or revision - Jever Chand v. Pukhraj Surana, AIR 1961 SC 1655.

Judgement Key Points

Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points relevant to the case:

The dispute primarily concerns whether the defendants made a payment of Rs. 19,000/- on 31 December, 1953, and whether this payment was properly endorsed on the mortgage bond. The defendants' claim is supported by oral evidence, books of account, and the physical evidence of the endorsement and its obliteration (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The plaintiffs deny the payment and contend that the endorsement was tampered with, suggesting that the endorsement in Marwari script was forged or altered after the fact. They argue that the original endorsement was erased or rubbed off and replaced with a different entry, which they claim was fabricated (!) (!) (!) .
There is significant evidence indicating that the endorsement for Rs. 19,000/- was erased or obliterated, and a new endorsement in Marwari script was created, possibly through chemical means or other tampering. The evidence suggests that the plaintiffs themselves may have altered the document to support their case (!) (!) (!) .
The case also involves whether the defendants acknowledged liability for Rs. 26,000/- or Rs. 2,600/- on 12 January, 1955. The endorsements and oral testimonies on this point are conflicting. The evidence indicates that the endorsement in Marwari script in respect of Rs. 26,000/- was in the same condition as when initially observed, and there are doubts about whether figures were tampered with or whether the endorsement was genuine (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The credibility of the documents and the evidence surrounding the endorsements is critical. The court notes that the mere marking of exhibits does not substitute for proof, and the authenticity of the endorsements, especially in the absence of direct proof of tampering, is a matter for careful scrutiny (!) (!) .
The surrounding circumstances, including the conduct of the parties and the nature of the evidence, support the view that the endorsement for Rs. 19,000/- was likely made by the defendant and subsequently tampered with by the plaintiffs. The evidence suggests that the plaintiffs may have fabricated or manipulated the document to prove their claim of a higher outstanding amount (!) (!) .
The court emphasizes that in cases involving document tampering or alterations, proof must be clear and direct. The absence of specific issues raised about tampering in pleadings and the lack of direct evidence of such tampering weaken the plaintiffs' case (!) (!) .
The final judgment affirms the decision of the lower courts to give the defendants credit for the Rs. 19,000/- payment made on 31 December, 1953, and dismisses the appeal, upholding the modifications to the decree accordingly (!) (!) .

In summary, the case hinges on the authenticity and integrity of the endorsements on the mortgage bond, with substantial evidence pointing toward tampering by the plaintiffs. The court's findings favor the defendants' version of events, supporting the conclusion that the Rs. 19,000/- payment was duly made and properly endorsed, and that the subsequent alterations were not genuine.

Judgment

RAY, J.: - This is an appeal by certificate from the judgment dated 13 January, 1964 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh modifying the decree passed by the Subordinate Judge on 27 November, 1958 and allowing the appeal from the decree by giving the defendants credit for the payment of Rs. 19,000/- on 31 December, 1953 towards the mortgage bond.

2. The appellants are the plaintiffs. The first appellant is a registered firm and the other appellents are its partners. The defendants Nos. 1 to 4 were the principal defendants and sued as mortgagees. Defendants Nos. 5 and 6 were partners of the plaintiffs firm who had retired. Defendants Nos. 7 and 8 were the subsequent mortgagees. Eventually, come of the heirs and legal representatives of the plaintiff s partners were brought on the record of the suit. They were numbered plaintiffs 6 to 10.

3. The appellants instituted the suit for the recovery of Rs. 27,995-11-0 with further interest and costs on the basis of a mortgage bond dated 1 January, 1948 executed by the first defendant and his sons defendants 2 to 4 in favour of the plaintiff firm.. The principal sum secured Rs. 17,500/- was repayable with compound interest at 1% per menses with half-yearly rests. The plaintiff firm after giving credit to the defendants for the sums paid towards the loan on the mortgage deed claimed the sum of Rs. 27,995-11-0 and interest. The plaintiff firm in paragraph 8 of the plaint further alleged that on 12 January, 1955 the first defendant acknowledged in writing on the mortgage bond liability for about Rs. 26,000/- and odd then found due while endorsing the payment in part for a sum of Rs. 410/-.

4. Defendants Nos. 1 to 4 applied to the Court for examination end scrutiny of the mortgage bond on two grounds. first, defendants Nos. 1 to 4 alleged that besides the payments mentioned in the plaint, the defendants had made a payment of Rs.19,000/- to the plaintiffs on 31 December, 1953 and the same was endorsed on the second page of the mortgage bond and the plaintiffs had not given the defendants credit for the same. The second ground was that the alleged acknowledgement of Rs. 26,000/- by the defendants was not correct. The defendants alleged that they acknowledged liability for Rs. 2600/- being the balance of the amount then due under the bond.

5. The plaintiffs filed a counter affidavit alleging that the defendants 1 to 4 had not paid Rs. 19,000/- on 31 December, 1953 and the allegation that the payment was endorsed on the second page of the mortgage bond was not true. The plaintiffs further alleged that the defendants 1 to 4 had acknowledged a debt of Rs. 26,000/- and not Rs. 2600/-

6. Defendants 1 to 4 were allowed to examine and scrutinise the mortgage bond before the Sheristadar on notice to the plaintiffs. The defendants 1 to 4 filed a written statement as follows. They admitted execution of the mortgage bond and receipt of the consideration. They made a payment of Rs. 19000/- on 31 December 1953 to the plaintiffs. The first defendant had endorsed on the mortgage bond the said payment of Rs. 19,000/- on the reverse side of the first page of the mortgage bond. On inspection it appeared that the plaintiffs rubbed the said endorsement with regard to the payment of Rupees 19,000/- and after obliterating the said endorsement the plaintiffs wrote an endorsement in Marwari language over the said rubbed portion. The plaintiffs did not file a true translation of the said endorsement in Marwari. The over-writing was visible on the document itself. The writing in Marwari was done with a view to covering up the endorsement made by the defendants with regard to payment. The plaintiffs willfully and deliberately tampered the endorsement made by the defendants with regard to acknowledgement of liability for Rupees 2600 into a liability for Rs. 26000/-.

7. The plaintiffs thereafter filed a statement in reply. The plaintiffs denied that the first defendant made any payment of Rs. 19,000/- on 31 December, 1953

Click Here to Read the rest of this document