AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The Court : The appeal arises out of a decree in a suit instituted in the year 1964. Though the decree was passed in 2001, the trial had commenced in fits and starts several years prior to the decree being passed. Though this is not a prelude to a subsequent excuse, some of the original documents brought on record in course of the trial are no longer available in this Court.
It is a matter of concern and regret and the Court must take the blame for the documents not being preserved. Indeed, the Court owes an apology to the parties on such account.
There is a questioned document of June 1, 1964 alleged to have executed by one Raj Kumar. The plaintiffs rely on such document as they claim that a fresh tenancy in respect of the suit property was created by such document. The veracity of the document was denied by Raj Kumar in his written statement. Raj Kumar is dead. The principal original plaintiffs are also dead.
It appears that in the light of the Raj Kumar's signature in the questioned document of June 1, 1964 being denied, the original agreement between the landlord and the plaintiffs' predecessor-in-interest by which the tenancy was granted in the year 1955 was produced for the admitted signature of Raj Kumar in such document. Though no handwriting expert was called by either side to prove or disprove the signature attributed to Raj Kumar in the questioned document of June 1, 1964, the trial Court found that the signature attributed to Raj Kumar in the questioned document was not genuine.
Quite appropriately, the plaintiffs have challenged such finding. At the very least, the plaintiffs are entitled to have the Appellate Court look into the documents. However, the original document of 1955 may not be available any more. The matter will appear a week hence. The Registrar, Original Side, will make every endeavour to ensure that the original documents filed pertaining to CS No.1552 of 1964 are produced when the matter appears next.
As an alternative, it has been suggested on behalf of the defendants that an agreement executed by Raj Kumar, the landlord, in favour of the Lakhotias in 1989 may be looked into since there is copious reference in the evidence to the transfer of the property by the landlord to the Lakhotias in 1989. The original agreement may be produced for the plaintiffs to have a right to accept the veracity of such document or exercise their right to cross-examine any person through whom the original agreement between Raj Kumar and the Lakhotias may be tendered into evidence at this appellate stage.
A copy of this order must be reached in course of the day to the Registrar, Original Side, so that it receives his immediate attention and every effort is made to search the records, particularly, the original documents filed in connection with the suit of 1964.