Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2003 (11) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2003 (11) TMI 605 - SC - Indian LawsSuit for recovery of possession - allegation of taking wrongful and forcible possession - admissibility and evidentiary value of rent receipts - HELD THAT - As seen from the record, it was pleaded in the plaint that certain blank stamp papers thumb marked and signed by the plaintiff were given to the defendant authorising him to represent them in various pending litigations. Even after the specific plea in the written statement of the defendant claiming status of a tenant on the basis of rent receipts, the pleadings in the plaint were not amended by the plaintiff to explain how on back of printed rent receipt, he happened to put his signatures. No consequential amendment was made in the plaint taking a plea of fraud and forgery of rent receipt. There is also no evidence to that effect. We find no force in the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant that as the mark of exhibits has been put on the back portions of the rent receipts near the place where the admitted signatures of the plaintiff appear, the rent receipts as a whole cannot be treated to have been exhibited as an admitted documents. We have already reproduced above the contents of the order no. 53 dated 3.9.82 of the trial court. The appellant cannot be allowed to question the correctness of the said under. The documents were admitted and then exhibited. The plaintiff did not dispute his signatures on the back of them. There was, therefore, no further burden of proof on the defendant to lead additional evidence in proof of the writing on the rent receipts and its due execution by the deceased landlady. The High Court rightly took a view that in face of the specific plea of tenancy by the tenant based on rent receipts, onus of proof, in fact, lay on the plaintiff to explain how blank printed rent receipts came to be signed by him on their back portions. We have extracted above the relevant pleadings in the plaint. The plaintiff failed to lead any evidence to show what were those pending litigations and what was the occasion and necessity to sign printed blank receipts at their back by the plaintiff. The High Court being the first court of appeals was fully within its powers to re-examine and re-appreciate the documentary and oral evidence. It could come to a conclusion contrary to the one reached by the trial court. As discussed, we find that the High Court was fully justified in taking a contrary view as it did and upsetting the judgment of the trial court resulting in dismissal of the suit. In the result, the appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed but in the circumstances, we leave the parties to bear their own costs in this appeal.
Issues involved: Suit for recovery of possession, admissibility and evidentiary value of rent receipts.
In the present case, the suit for recovery of possession of the suit premises was decreed by the city civil court but later set aside by the Division Bench of the High Court, leading to an appeal in the Supreme Court. The main issue raised before the Supreme Court was the admissibility and evidentiary value of the rent receipts which were crucial in determining the tenancy status of the contesting respondent. The contesting respondent claimed to be in possession of the suit premises as a tenant and produced rent receipts and an agreement of tenancy to support his claim. The plaintiff, on the other hand, alleged that the rent receipts were fabricated by the defendant, as he had access to the rent bills kept by the plaintiff. The trial court found in favor of the plaintiff, stating that the rent receipts were manufactured by the defendant. However, the High Court, on appeal, reversed this finding and accepted the rent receipts as genuine, emphasizing that the plaintiff failed to explain how his signatures appeared on the back of the rent receipts. The High Court highlighted that the defendant's claim of tenancy based on the rent receipts was credible, as the signatures on the receipts were admitted by the plaintiff and marked as exhibits by the court. The court emphasized that the plaintiff did not dispute his signatures on the rent receipts, shifting the burden of proof onto the plaintiff to explain the circumstances of how the receipts were signed by him. The High Court, as the first court of appeals, re-examined the evidence and concluded that the defendant's claim of tenancy was valid, leading to the dismissal of the suit. In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court, stating that the High Court was justified in re-evaluating the evidence and reaching a different conclusion from the trial court. The appeal was dismissed, and the parties were left to bear their own costs in the appeal.
|