High Court Of Calcutta
KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA
DULAL CHANDRA ADAK - Appellant
Versus
GUNADHAR PATRA - Respondent
S. A. 103 Of 1986
Decided On : 09/30/1997
FORGERY - DEED OF GIFT - IMPERSONATION - ADMISSION OF VALIDITY BY CO-PLAINTIFF - EVIDENCE ACT, 1872, SECTION 18 - EVIDENCE OF FINGERPRINT EXPERT - DIRECT EVIDENCE - WEIGHT AND VALUE.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs filed a suit for partition and administration of properties left by Nandalal Adak, deceased, and sought a declaration that a deed of gift executed by Nandalal Adak in favor of the defendants was not binding on them, alleging it was forged and fabricated.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court and appellate court held that the deed of gift was fabricated and not executed lawfully by Nandalal Adak.
Issues: 1. Whether the deed of gift dated 5th August, 1973 is a valid and lawful document? 2. Whether the said deed of gift was validly and lawfully executed by Nandalal Adak, since deceased?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The evidence of the fingerprint expert alone cannot outweigh direct evidence of execution, attestation, and registration. 2. Expert evidence is corroborative and not substantive. 3. The plaintiffs' allegations of undue influence and misrepresentation were inconsistent with the allegation of forgery and fabrication. 4. The admission of one of the plaintiffs that the deed of gift was valid and lawful binds the other plaintiff under Section 18 of the Evidence Act, 1872. 5. The direct evidence of the defendants on the point of registration and execution was not rebutted by the plaintiffs.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the judgment and decree of the trial court and appellate court were set aside. The suit was dismissed.
( 1 ) THIS appeal is preferred impugning two judgments and decrees passed by the learned appellate Court below namely the learned Additional District Judge, Midnapore in Title Appeal No. 121 of 1984 and the learned trial Judge, viz. , the learned Assistant District Judge 3rd Court at Midnapore in Title Suit No. 115 of 1976. Both the learned Court below held in favour of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 who were the plaintiffs in the suit. The suit filed by the respondents Nos. 1 and 2/plaintiffs amongst other principally for partition and administration of the properties left behind by one Nandalal Adak, since deceased. In the said suit another relief has been claimed by the plaintiffs for declaration that the deed of gift allegedly executed by Nandlal Adak, since deceased in favour of the appellants herein is not binding upon the plaintiffs and the same are forged and fabricated document. The bone of contention in the present appeal as well as the suit is whether the said deed of gift dated 5th August, 1973 is a valid and lawful document or not. In other words, whether or not the said deed of gift was validly and lawfully executed by Nandalal Adak, since deceased. Both the learned Court below held that the said deed of gift is a fabricated document and the same has not been executed and registered by Nandalal Adak lawfully. During pendency of the appeal 1 in this Court the plaintiff No. 1 along with the appellants herein made an application in this Hon'ble Court for compromise. In the said compromise petition filed on 10 Mar. 1988 the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 has categorically stated that the said deed of gift was validly and lawfully executed by Nandalal Adak. In his petition the plaintiff No. 1 has in effect contradicted his own stand in the plaint. At the time of hearing both the parties agreed I should decide the suit itself, on the basis of the material available before me, as both the judgments and decrees of the learned Court below are liable to be set aside under the law. It is submitted jointly that I can do so under Order XLII, Rule 1 read with Order XLI, Rule 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
( 2 ) MR. Tarak Nath Roy, the learned Advocate appearing in support of the appeal, submits that both the learned Courts below have gone wrong while declaring that the said deed of gift is fabricated document upon impersonation. The learned both the Courts below came to the conclusion on the basis of evidence of the finger print expert and without considering rather brushing aside the direct evidence adduced by it is also his submission that averments made in the plaint are inconsistent and/or contradictory inasmuch as the plaintiffs on the one hand admitted the execution and signature of the donor by making out case of undue influence and misrepresentation, on the other hand the plaintiffs have denied and disputed the execution and registration of the donor alleging impersonation and forgery. Therefore, he submits these two allegations cannot run side by side. It is his submission further that where there is a case of undue influence and misrepresentation, the genuineness of signature and/or thumb impression of the author of the document is admitted. But in the case of forgery and/or impersonation the question of undue influence and misrepresentation is beyond question. He submits further that in the said compromise petition one of the plaintiffs has categorically admitted that the said deed of gift is a valid piece of document, such admission squarely binds another plaintiff namely the other respondent under Section 18 of the Evidence Act, 1872. Mr. Roy further submits that the learned trial Judge has exceeded his jurisdiction by not following the order of direction given by the learned appellate Court below passed in the order of remand dated (sic ).
( 3 ) MR. Basu appearing for the respondent No. 2 submits that all the materials and evidence are galore whereby it will be evident that the said alle
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.