Back
1994 Supreme(MP) 217
Shacheendra Dwivedi, J.
Sarnam Singh v. Ram Swarup
M.P. No. 463 of 1993 (G); Decided on 8.3.1994*.
P.C. Chandil for petitioner; Lokendra Gupta for respondents No.1 & 2.
Headnote:(1) Documents -- signature on document admitted u presumption of knowing the contents of such document can be raised.
(2) Civil P.C., 1908 -- O. 39 Rr. 1 and 2 -- possession of defendant found by trial Court rightly u mandatory injunction by appellate Court cannot be granted.
¼1½ nLrkost & nLrkost ij gLrk{kj Lohd`r & ,sls nLrkost dh varoZLrq dh tkudkjh dh mi/kkj.kk dh tk ldrh gSA
¼2½ flfoy izfdz;k lafgrk & vk- 39 fu- 1 rFkk 2 & izfroknh dk dCtk fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk Bhd fu"df"kZr & vihy U;k;ky; }kjk vkKkid O;kns‘k ugha fn;k tk ldrkA
In this petition the challenge is to the order dated 24th February 1993 (Annex.P/11) passed by the appellate Court thereby directing the petitioner to handover the possession of the disputed property by vacating the land and removing the construction.
Held: It is pertinent to mention that respondent No.1 has not denied his signatures on the deed of agreement but has instead said that his signatures were taken by the petitioner fraudulently without disclosing him the contents of the document. Once a party admits his signatures on a document, a presumption is raised about the knowledge of the contents of the document and the burden then shifts on the party so alleging to prove the circumstances under which he had signed the document, even if the contents of the document are denied by him Till this is proved, the presumption· would be that when the signatures on the document were made and were also admitted by the party then he knew the contents while signing the document. Under the agreement, the possession of the disputed land is st.1ted to have been handed over by respondent No.1 to the petitioner and having received the amount of Rs. 5,500/-. With this presumption in view of the second commissioner report wherein the petitioner was found to be Li"Ving with his family on the spot, for the present, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not in possession before the filing of the suit.
The entries relied on by the appellate Court are of no avail at this stage since the respondent No.1 is admitted to be the owner of the land. The documents relied and allegations made by the parties are yet to be provide but on the admission of respondent No.1 in respect to his signatures on the document of agreement, a presumption is raised in favour of the petitioner that the possession of the disputed land was parted with by the respondent No.1 in his favour and that he was in possession thereof.
The issuance of a mandatory injunction in favour of respondent No.1 with a direction to the petitioner to handover vacant possession of the land, would be pre-judging the issue which is not permissible under the law. The learned trial Court for the present had rightly found that since respondent No.1 was not in possession of the land in dispute at the time of filing of the suit, there was no question of its restoration to him. The interference in the order by the appellate Court against the legal presumption available to the petitioner was wholly unwarranted. Petition allowed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
[Key Point 1] The respondent admitted to signing the disputed agreement but claimed that the signatures were obtained fraudulently without disclosure of the contents. The court held that once a party admits signing a document, a presumption arises that they knew its contents, shifting the burden to prove otherwise (!) .
[Key Point 2] The court found that the possession of the disputed land was handed over by the respondent to the petitioner, supported by the respondent's admission and the second commissioner's report indicating the petitioner was living on the land. This established that the petitioner was in possession prior to the filing of the suit (!) .
[Key Point 3] The appellate court's reliance on certain entries was deemed insufficient because the ownership of the land was admitted by the respondent. The documents and allegations were yet to be proved, and the presumption from the respondent’s signature supported the petitioner’s possession claim (!) .
[Key Point 4] Issuing a mandatory injunction directing the petitioner to vacate and hand over possession was considered premature, as it would prejudge the issues. The trial court's decision that the respondent was not in possession at the time of filing was upheld, and the appellate court's interference was deemed unwarranted (!) .
[Key Point 5] The petition was allowed, affirming that the petitioner was in lawful possession and that the respondent had parted with possession through a valid agreement. The legal presumption regarding the signatures was a key factor in this decision (!) .
If you need further analysis or specific legal advice, please let me know.
