Back
2019 Supreme(MP) 316
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
G. S. Ahluwalia, J.
Harisingh v. Yaswant Singh and others
Miscellaneous Petition No. 1013 of 2019 (Gwalior): against the order dated 11.1.2019 passed by the Additional Civil Judge Class-I, Karera, District Shivpuri in Civil Suit No. 87A/2016; Decided on 21.6.2019
Harish Dixit for petitioner; Santosh Agrawal for respondents.
Headnote:
Evidence Act, 1872 -- S. 45 -- petitioner denied his signatures in Hindi on deed of family settlement -- case of petitioner is that he never signs in Hindi -- not his case that his signatures in Hindi are available in any other document -- mutation proceedings containing his signatures in Hindi are the only available documents -- Court did not commit any mistake in directing comparison of his disputed signatures with his signatures in Hindi available in mutation proceedings -- however, petitioner claims that he never to be in Hindi signs -- he would be free to establish that he has never participated in mutation proceedings. [Paras 8 & 9]
lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 & /kkjk 45 & ;kph us dkSVqafcd le>kSrs ds foys[k ij fganh esa vius gLrk{kj ls bUdkj fd;k ;kph dk i{kdFku gS fd og dHkh fganh esa gLrk{kj ugha djrk & mldk ;g i{kdFku ugha fd mlds fganh gLrk{kj fdlh vU; nLrkost ij miyC/k gSa & mlds fganh gLrk{kj okyh ukekarj.k dk;Zokgh ,dek= miyC/k nLrkost & fopkj.k U;k;ky; us ukekarj.k dk;Zokgh esa miyC/k mlds fganh gLrk{kjksa ls mlds fookfnr gLrk{kjksa dh rqyuk djus dk funs'k nsus esa dksbZ xyrh ugha dh & rFkkfi] ;kph dk nkok fd og dHkh fganh esa gLrk{kj ugha djrk & og ;g LFkkfir djus ds fy, Lora= gksxk fd mlus ukekarj.k dk;Zokgh esa dHkh Hkkx ugha fy;kA ¼iSjk 8 ,oa 9½
ORDER
1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 11.1.2019 passed by Additional Civil Judge Class-I, Karera District Shivpuri in Civil Suit No. 87-A/2016 by which the application filed by the respondent No. 1 under Section45 of the Evidence Act for examination of the signatures on the partition deed with the signatures available in the mutation proceeding has been allowed.
2. The necessary facts for the disposal of the present petition in short are that the respondents have filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction on the ground that the property has been partitioned and the respondent No. 1 was also a party to the partition deed.
3. As the respondent No. 1 had denied the execution of the partition deed, therefore, the petitioner filed an application under Section45 of the Evidence Act for comparison of the signature of respondent No. 1 which are available on the partition deed with the signatures of the respondent No. 1 which are available in the mutation proceedings which had taken place before the Special Area Development Narwar.
4. The trial Court by the impugned order has allowed the application and has directed for comparison of the signatures of the petitioner which are available on the partition deed with the signatures of the petitioner on the mutation proceedings which are available in the Office of Nagar Panchayat Narwar.
5. Challenging the order passed by the Court below, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that although he has no objection to the application filed by the respondents/plaintiff under section 45 of the Evidence Act but the petitioner has also denied his signatures on the mutation proceedings which were alleged to have taken place in the Nagar Panchayat, Narwar and, therefore, the signatures of the petitioner available in the mutation proceedings cannot be said to be his admitted signatures and, therefore, the direction given by the trial Court for comparison of the signatures on the family settlement with the signatures available in the mutation proceedings is bad. It is further submitted that the petitioner never signs in Hindi.
6. Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the respondent No. 1 that the petitioner had signed the family settlement in Hindi and had also signed the mutation proceedings in Hindi whereas he is claiming that he never signs in Hindi, he always signs in English. It is further submitted whether the petitioner had appeared and submitted his affidavit and signed the mutation proceedings before the Nagar Panchayat, Narwar or not can also be decided in this suit and since it is the case of the petitioner that his signature in Hindi are not available in any document, therefore, the trial Court did not commit any mistake in directing for comparison of the signatures of the petitioner on the family settlement with the signatures of the petitioner available in the mutation proceedings.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
8. It is the case of the respondents that the document of family settlement bears the signatures of the petitioner which are in Hindi whereas the petitioner has denied his signatures on the deed of family settlement. It is the case of the petitioner that he never signs in Hindi and he always signs in English whereas the signatures on the deed of family settlement are in Hindi. It is not the case of the petitioner that his admitted signatures in Hindi are available in other document. Thus according to the parties, the signatures in the mutation proceedings which are in Hindi are only documents which are available.
9. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the trial Court did not commit any mistake in directing for the comparison of the disputed signatures of the petitioner with the signatures available on the mutation proceedings. Since the petitioner has disputed the mutation proceedings also, therefore, he would be free to establish t
