Execution of a document encompasses more than the mere act of signing; it requires evidence that the signatory understood and accepted the document's contents. In allegations of signature manipulation, the burden of proving due execution rests on the party asserting the document's validity.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 96 - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 111(f) - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 111 - Registration Act, 1908 - Sections 17 and 49 - Recovery of possession and compensation - Dispute regarding execution of undertaking - Admissibility of unregistered instruments - Burden of proof in fiduciary relationships. (Paras 1, 37, 40)

(B) Evidence - Execution of documents - Mere admission of a signature on a document does not equate to an admission of its execution - Execution necessitates signing a document with full knowledge and intent to be bound by its stated contents - Where a document is challenged as being signed in blank, the initial onus remains on the party relying on the document to establish its valid execution. (Paras 13-16, 27)

(C) Fiduciary Relationship - Burden of proof - A party in a position of active confidence and trust bears the burden of establishing that a transaction between them and a dependent party is fair, reasonable, and free from undue influence or manipulation. (Paras 31, 44)

(D) Registration - Lease agreements - An unregistered document, which by law requires compulsory registration, is inadmissible to prove terms of the lease, except for collateral purposes such as establishing the nature and character of physical possession. (Paras 38-40)

Facts of the case:
The claimants, formerly occupying premises as tenants, sought recovery of possession and damages based on an alleged undertaking purportedly given by the owner to return the premises following renovations. The owner denied executing the undertaking, claiming that their signatures had been fraudulently obtained on blank stamp papers while the claimants were acting in a professional capacity for the owner’s tax filings. The trial court dismissed the claim, citing lack of proof regarding the document's execution.

Findings of Court:
The appellate court noted material inconsistencies in the testimony of the claimants regarding the timing of possession surrender and the document's preparation. The court concluded that the claimants, given their professional status and trust-based relationship with the owner, failed to discharge the burden of proving that the document was explained to, understood by, and voluntarily signed by the owner.

Issues: The main issues were whether admission of a signature constitutes proof of document execution, whether a fiduciary relationship shifts the burden of proving transaction fairness, and whether an unregistered primary agreement prohibits reliance on ancillary documents.

Ratio Decidendi: Execution is not a purely clinical act of signing; it represents a meeting of minds. When a document is formally challenged, the party seeking to rely on it must present evidence confirming that the instrument was prepared, read, and comprehended by the signatory. The lack of independent proof regarding the document's drafting and notarization, combined with unexplained temporal contradictions, justifies dismissing reliance on the contested instrument.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

BRIEF BACKGROUND:

1. The instant first appeal has been filed by the appellants/tenants (plaintiffs before the Trial Court) under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) against the judgment and decree dated 10th September, 2014, passed by the Additional District Judge-17 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in suit bearing CS No. 398/2014, titled as Sunil Kumar Jain and Anr. Versus Ram Kishan Tokas and Anr. (“impugned judgment”).

2. The appellants had filed CS No. 398/2014 seeking a decree towards recovery of firstly, possession of the Corner Shop measuring 15 X 9 sq. ft., situated in property bearing No. E-108/2, Opposite Community Centre, BGN Market, Munirka Village, New Delhi (“suit shop”) and secondly, Rs. 1,00,000/- towards damages and compensation for the period from 01st July, 2004 to 30th November, 2004 from the respondents (defendants before the Trial Court). There was further prayer for decree of permanent injunction, restraining the respondents from parting away with possession of the suit shop or from creating any third-party interest therein.

3. The Trial Court, by way of the impugned judgment and decree dated 10th September, 2014, dismissed the suit of the appellants by holding that respondent no. 1 (defendant no. 1 before the Trial Court) had been able to prove that the suit instituted by the appellants/plaintiffs was without any cause of action and further, that the appellants/plaintiffs had been unable to prove by way of evidence the due execution of the alleged Undertaking dated 01st July, 2004.

4. This Court notes that the earlier respondent no. 2, i.e., Shri Mahender Singh (defendant no. 2 before the Trial Court), was deleted from the array of parties vide order dated 30th June, 2015, on account of his demise. Accordingly, an amended Memo of Parties dated 19th June, 2015 came to be filed. The position of the parties, as recorded in the said amended Memo of Parties, shall be referenced hereinafter in the present judgment.

5. Before adverting to the facts of the present appeal, it is noted that this Court, vide order dated 19th January, 2015, while issuing notice in the appeal, had directed the parties to maintain status quo with respect to the suit shop. The said interim order had subsequently been made absolute on 25th August, 2015.

RELEVANT FACTS:

6. The facts, relevant for adjudication of the present appeal, flowing from the impugned judgment and the evidence on record, are as follows:

Pre-Filing of Suit:

6.1. Tenancy was created in respect of the suit shop by way of a Rent Agreement dated 26th June, 2001 (Ex. PW1/E), whereby, respondent no.1 leased out the suit shop to the appellants at a monthly rent of Rs. 1,000/-, for an indefinite period, with effect from 26th June, 2001.

6.2. In terms of the Rent Agreement, appellants deposited Rs. 3.40 lakhs as security deposit with the respondent no. 1, wherein, Rs. 3.30 lakhs were deposited by way of a manager’s cheque bearing No. 005172 dated 25th June, 2001, drawn on HDFC Bank (Ex. PW1/B) and Rs. 10,000/- was paid in cash, against which, respondent no. 1 had issued a receipt dated 18th June, 2001 (Ex. PW1/D). A receipt dated 25th June, 2001, marked as Ex. PW1/C, is also on record, acknowledging payment of entire amount of Rs. 3.40 lakhs from the appellants to respondent no. 1.

6.3. Thereafter, the appellants continued to be in possession of the suit shop from 26th June, 2001 and paid the requisite rent till June, 2004. Rent receipts of the relevant periods for the years 2001, 2002 and 2004 are on record as Ex. PW1/I Colly.

6.4. Around June, 2004, dispute arose between the appellants and respondent no. 1. It was the case of appellants before the Trial Court that in the second half of June, 2004, respondent no. 1 approached them with a proposal to vacate the suit shop on a temporary basis to renovate it, and an Undertaking dated 01st July, 2004, marked as Ex. PW1/F, was executed in this regard by respondent no. 1. In terms of the said Undertaking,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 46456

Execution of a document encompasses more than the mere act of signing; it requires evidence that the signatory understood and accepted the document's contents. In allegations of signature manipulation, the burden of proving due execution rests on the party asserting the document's validity.

Cases Referred (7)