Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 68398
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. M. Subramaniam, C. Saravanan, JJ
M.G.Riaz Khan – Appellant
Versus
MMTC Limited Chennai – Respondent
Original Side Appeal | OSA No. 284 of 2025 | OSA No. 285 of 2025 | OSA No. 286 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. M.Balachandar
For the Respondents: Mr.J.Srinivasan, M/s Rugan and Arya
The requirement for robust evidence in validating documents in legal proceedings, highlighting the necessity for authenticity and transparency.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code - Section 47 - Execution Proceedings - Appellants challenged execution based on alleged invalid Hiba deed - Court found insufficient evidence to establish the Hiba's authenticity, citing suspicious documentation and lack of witness corroboration - Findings of lower courts upheld as conclusive. (Paras 3-6)
(B) Legal Authenticity - Document verification must meet a standard of evidence - The absence of concrete evidence raised suspicion regarding the authenticity of the document in question. (Paras 3-5)
(C) Judgment Finality - Response of parties through various appeals reveals the complexity of legal standing and execution validity over a lengthy period. (Paras 2, 3)
Facts of the case:
The appeals arise from execution proceedings linked to a 1995 decree. Disputes concerned the alleged invalidity of a Hiba deed. The courts found the deed unproven and dismissed the appeals.
Findings of Court:
Both the Master and the Single Judge found no credible evidence to validate the Hiba deed, questioning its authenticity and execution.
Issues: Key questions revolved around the legitimacy of the Hiba deed and whether execution should proceed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reinforced the necessity of meeting documentary verification standards in legal instruments, stressing that failure to provide clear evidence undermines a party's claim.
Result: Original Side Appeals dismissed, maintaining the ruling of prior courts.
JUDGMENT
(Judgment was delivered by S.M.Subramaniam J.)
The Original Side Appeals are preferred against the common order dated 01.08.2025 passed in Application Nos.5644 to 5646 of 2024 in E.P.No.83 of 2022 in C.S.No.777 of 1995.
2. Pertinently, a suit was filed in the year 1995 and a decree was passed in the year 20.07.2001. The Original Side Appeal in O.S.A.No.375 of 2001 was dismissed on 13.07.2009 and the subsequent Special Leave to Appeal in S.L.P.(Civil) No.20570 of 2009 was also dismissed on 26.10.2009. Thus, the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court became final. Execution proceedings were initiated in the year 2002.
3. An application under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code had been instituted in Application No.358 of 2008 to dismiss the Execution Proceedings. The 2nd respondent pleaded in the petition that the mortgage was invalid and the decree holder committed fraud and obtained the decree. Thus, the decree is unexcludable. Curiously, neither the counter nor the Section 47 application states about the Hiba and the parties have successfully prolonged the matter till 2011. Subsequently, the 2nd defendant in the application before the Master Mrs.A.L.Hameedha Beevi (deceased) brought to the notice of the Execution Court about the Hiba, which is in their favour.
3. The learned Master in his order dated 11.09.2024 has made a finding regarding the Deed of Hiba in paragraph 15, 16 and 17, which reads as under:
“15. The Deed of Hiba is marked as Ex.P1 and it contains 7 sheets. Except sheet 1 and sheet 7 (i.e) last sheet, no date is mentioned at anywhere. Moreover the donor, donee and the witnesses who have signed, did not mention the date at anywhere. Except the first sheet which is a stamp paper of 20 rupees, all other sheets are white sheets. In the last page the counsel who is said to have drafted this deed of Hiba has mentioned the date as 09.04.23. Similarly, in the first page, it is stated that “This DEED of HIBA is made at Madras on this 9th day of April 1993”.
Except these two places nowhere in the deed the date is mentioned. It is the case of the applicant that this deed was executed on 09.04.1993. But the first page/sheet of Rs.20 stamp paper bears the date 26.01.1993. The Hiba deed was said to have been executed on a stamp paper which was purchased nearly 3 months back.
16. No evidence has been let to show when and where the stamp paper was purchased and when and where the deed was drafted. No witness is examined to prove the execution of the deed and the contention of the deed. Further when a Gift deed was executed by a mother in favour of her children and that too was drafted by a learned advocate and attested by a notary why fresh stamp papers or some stamp papers as on date was not purchased, creates a suspicion on the execution of the said Hiba deed. The stamp paper bears the date 26.01.1993. The said deed was said to be executed on 09.04.1993. It has not been established why on that date a fresh stamp paper as on date was not purchased and the Hiba deed was executed on a stamp paper containing earlier date is not clarified or answered by the applicant side.
17. If the Deed was executed on a particular date it would have been or could have been drafted in a Stamp paper bearing the same date. Further no dates are mentioned at anywhere else except the stamp papers which creates strong suspicion on the document. No oral evidence or supportive evidence has been let to prove the execution of this Deed. The applicants have failed to prove the execution of the said Hiba deed. Further the revenue records were mutated only after this application. Though the possession is with the applicants it is not as a consequence of execution of the Hiba deed, since the applicants are the legal heirs of the 2nd Judgment debtor. In all aspects, the applicants have failed to establish and prove their case.”
4. The order of the Master Court was challenged and the learned Single Judge, in the impugned common order reiterated the fin
