AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.M. Savant, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the Appellant Shri Shriram Kulkarni, and the learned counsel for the Respondent No. 1 Shri Nitin Deshpande. Admit on the following substantial questions of law:-
A] Whether the Courts below could have ignored the opinion of the hand writing expert so as to go to the extent of discarding his evidence in view of the evidence of the witnesses of the Defendant No. 1 being DW No. 2 and DW No. 3 on the ground that the direct evidence would have more weightage and the opinion of the hand writing expert would not impinge upon the same ?
B] Whether the findings recorded by the Courts below are perverse, and having been rendered in ignorance of the material pleadings and the material evidence led by the parties considering the fact that the Defendant No. 1 had admitted the hand loan transaction and thereafter comes out a new theory of additional consideration of Rs. 11,000/- for execution of the sale deed ?
C] Whether the Defendant No. 1 has proved the surrounding circumstances for proving the sale deed as a genuine document by leading sufficient and cogent evidence ?
With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the above Second Appeals are taken up for final hearing forthwith.
The above Second Appeals arise out of the Judgment and Orders both dated 18/1/2002 passed the 4th Ad-hoc Assistant Sessions Judge, Pune by which the Appeals filed by the Appellant herein being Regular Civil Appeal No. 20 of 2000 and Regular Civil Appeal 19 of 2000 came to be dismissed and resultantly the decree of dismissal of the suits in question being Regular Civil suit No. 1123 of 1988 and Regular Civil Suit No. 1621 of 1993 came to be confirmed.
Since the above Second Appeals involve common questions of fact and law, they are being heard together and disposed of by the instant order. The parties would be referred to as per their status in the Trial Court.
The Appellant herein is the original Plaintiff in both the suits i.e. Regular Civil Suit Nos. 1123 of 1988 and Regular Civil Suit No. 1621 of 1993. In so far as Regular Civil Suit No. 1123 of 1988 is concerned, the same was filed by the Plaintiff for a declaration that the sale deed dated 4/4/1985 is null and void. In so far as the Regular Civil Suit No. 1621 of 1993 is concerned, the same was filed for redemption of mortgage dated 1/4/1985 and for possession.
It was the case of the Plaintiff that on account of financial crisis the Plaintiff had approached the Defendant No. 1 upon which the Defendant No. 1 extended a hand loan of Rs. 15,000/- to the Plaintiff, as a security for which the Plaintiff had executed a mortgage by conditional sale dated 1/4/1985. The condition was that the Defendant No. 1 was to enjoy the usufruct out of the land bearing Gat No. 966 at Jarkarwadi for a period of 5 years in lieu of interest, and at the end of 5 years on payment being made by the Plaintiff, the Defendant No. 1 was to return the said land to the Plaintiff. It was the case of the Plaintiff that he came across a public notice issued in the local newspaper on 24/8/2985 which disclosed that the Defendant No. 1 had made a declaration that he has become the owner of the said land bearing Gat No. 966 at Jarkarwadi on the basis of a sale deed dated 4/4/1985 executed by the Plaintiff. It was the case of the Plaintiff that the sale deed is a fraudulent document as he has never executed the said document and that by impersonating him before the registering authority that the said document was got executed. It was the case of the Plaintiff that he has made complaint to the revenue authority as regards the entry made in the name of the Defendant No. 1 in the revenue record. However, since the revenue authority had not taken cognizance of the Plaintiff''s complaint, that the suits in question came to be filed.
In so far as Regular Civil Suit No. 1621 of 1993 (old Suit No. 165 of 1990) is concerned, the said suit has been filed on the foundation that at the end of the period of 5 years the Plaintiff had approached the Defendant No. 1 with the amount that was to be repaid for being handed over the land in question, and since the Defendant No. 1 had failed to abide by the said document dated 1/4/1985 that the Plaintiff was constrained to file the second suit being Regular Civil Suit No. 1621 of 1993, which was filed for possession on the ground that after the period of 5 years the Plaintiff was entitled to get back the possession of the said land.
In the said suit the Defendant No. 1 initially set up a defence that he had forwarded hand loan of Rs. 15,000/- to the Plaintiff but thereafter in the light of the sale deed dated 4/4/1985 came up with a stand that since the Plaintiff''s financial crisis continued, the Plaintiff had again approached him for further amount to be advanced to him on account of which the Defendant No. 1 had advanced further sum of Rs. 11,000/- to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff had executed the said sale deed dated 4/4/1985. Since the facts in the said two suits were overlapping it appears that the parties had agreed before the Trial Court that the evidence recorded in Regular Civil Suit No. 1123 of 1988 would also be read in Regular Civil Suit No. 1621 of 1993. In support of the respective assertions viz. that the sale deed is fraudulent document and that he had never executed the same, the Plaintiff adduced his own evidence as also the evidence of hand writing expert one Shri Pandit to whom the admitted signatures of the Plaintiff along with the disputed signatures on the sale deed dated 4/4/1985 were referred for his opinion. Since it was the assertion of the Defendant No. 1 that the sale deed was the genuine document and that the Plaintiff has himself executed the same before the registering authority, the Defendant No. 1 had examined himself and also had examined advocate Shri Joshi who drafted the document, and one Shri Narsale who was the witness to the said document. The said witnesses were examined to buttress the case of the Defendant No. 1 that the Plaintiff was in fact himself present before the registering authority on 4/4/1985 and had executed the said sale deed.
The Trial Court considered the said evidence on record. In so far as the evidence of the hand writing expert Shri Pandit is concerned, in the light of his cross examination wherein he has stated that he is not definite about his opinion in respect of the signatures of the Plaintiff and in the light of his statement that the science of giving an opinion as regards hand writing is not a perfect science, the Trial Court was of the view that the said opinion could not be solely relied upon unless corroborated. The Trial Court held that in the light of the direct evidence of the witnesses of the Defendant No. 1, the said substantive evidence would have to be preferred over the evidence of the hand writing expert which at the best can be the opinion of an expert and would not be conclusive. The Trial Court also came to a conclusion that the Plaintiff had not discharged the burden of proving fraud as there was no evidence worth-name to support the Plaintiff''s case that the document was fraudulent document, and the same was got executed by the Defendant No. 1 by impersonating him. The Trial Court was of the view that there was a defining aspect of which notice was required to be taken viz. the fact that the Plaintiff had chosen to remain away from the Court when the examination of Advocate Shri Joshi and the witness Shri Narsale was being conducted. This according to the Trial Court was probably done by the Plaintiff with a view to avoid identification by the said Joshi and Narsale in the Court. The Trial Court held that the said conduct would be relevant having regard to Section 8 of the Evidence Act considering, the case of the Plaintiff that the said document was obtained fraudulently and by impersonating him. The Trial Court also took into consideration the fact that a suggestion was put up on behalf of the Plaintiff to the Defendant Witness No. 2 Shri Joshi as regards whether he knows the Plaintiff. This according to the Trial Court was a pointer to the fact that the Plaintiff was knowing advocate Shri Joshi from before. The Trial Court was of the view that the case of the Plaintiff based on certain contradictions which are there in the evidence of the Defendant Nos. 1'' witnesses could not further the case of the Plaintiff in the light of the direct evidence that has come on record. The Trial Court therefore by the judgment and order dated 7/12/1999 dismissed both the suits.
The aggrieved Plaintiff carried the matter in Appeal by filing two Appeals being Regular Civil Appeal No. 20 of 2000 which was arising out of the decree of dismissal passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 1123 of 1988, and Regular Civil Appeal No. 19 of 2000 which was arising out of the decree of dismissal passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 1621 of 1993. The Lower Appellate Court on a re-consideration of the matter addressed the issue as regards the evidence of the hand writing expert. The Lower Appellate Court as can be seen confirmed the finding of the Trial Court that in the light of the direct evidence of the witnesses of the Defendant No. 1, the evidence of the hand writing expert Shri Pandit could not be relied upon. The Lower Appellate Court adverted to the fact that the evidence of the witnesses of the Defendant No. 1 was not shaken in the cross examination so as to disbelieve them. At the same time the Lower Appellate Court also held that the Plaintiff has not discharged the burden of proving fraud when it was the case of the Plaintiff that the said document dated 4/4/1985 was a fraudulent document. The Lower Appellate Court adverted to the evidence of the witnesses Advocate Shri Joshi and Shri Narsale who had stated that the document dated 4/4/1985 was signed in their presence. The Lower Appellate Court was of the view that the admission of the endorsement on the document and the certificate of registration raises presumption that the said document has been validly executed. The Lower Appellate Court therefore did not deem it appropriate to interfere with the decree passed by the Trial Court in both the suits and accordingly by the impugned judgment and order both dated 18/1/2002 dismissed both the Appeals. As indicated above the above Second Appeal arising out of the said judgment orders both dated 18/1/2002.
SUBMISSIONS OF SHRI SHRIRAM S. KULKARNI, THE LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT:-
In the light of the questions of law as framed herein above, Shri Kulkarni, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant advanced the following submissions:-
A] That the Courts below had erred in rejecting the evidence of the hand writing expert Shri Pandit on the ground that in view of the direct evidence which was available, the same would have to be preferred over the opinion of the hand writing expert;
B] That the Courts below had erred in not resorting to Section 73 of the Evidence Act in comparing the disputed signatures of the Plaintiff with the admitted signatures;
C] That there is perversity in the finding of the Courts below that the evidence of the witnesses of the Defendant No. 1 has gone unchallenged. That the Courts below in the said process have not taken into consideration the evidence which has come on record in the cross examination of the Defendant No. 1''s witnesses;
D] That there is no mention of the earlier transaction of mortgage dated 1/4/1985 in the sale deed dated 4/4/1985 when it is the case of the Defendant No. 1 that there was an earlier transaction of mortgage. The said fact therefore creates suspicion as it is the Defendant No. 1''s own case that he had advanced further sum of Rs. 11,000/- to the Plaintiff.
E] That for the aforesaid reasons the matter is required to be remanded back to the Courts below as the evidence which has come in the cross examination of the witnesses of the Defendant No. 1 on record has not been considered in its proper perspective.
SUBMISSIONS OF SHRI NITIN P DESHPANDE, THE LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT NO. 1:-
1] That the opinion of the hand writing expert by itself cannot be conclusive and that the same has to be supported by the corroborative evidence. In support of the said submission, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the following judgments of the Apex Court reported in 1] Shashi Kumar Banerjee and Others Vs. Subodh Kumar Banerjee since deceased and after him his legal representatives and Others, since deceased and after him his legal representatives and others; 2] State of Maharashtra Vs. Sukhdeo Singh and another Vs. State of Maharashtra Through C.B.I. Vs. Sukhdev Singh alias Sukha and others, Magan Bihari Lal Vs. The State of Punjab, Gaudiya Mission Vs. Shobha Bose and Another, .
2] That the Plaintiff has failed to bring home his case of the document being a fraudulent document as there is no evidence worth-name;
3] That the evidence of the witnesses of the Defendant No. 1 has been appreciated by the Courts below in the proper perspective in the context of the case of the Plaintiff that the said document was a fraudulent document;
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties I have bestowed my anxious consideration to the rival contentions. In the instant case, as can be seen, the admitted signatures of the Plaintiff on the Plaint and Vakalatnama, and the signatures which were obtained in the Court were sent for comparison with the three disputed signatures which were appearing on the document in question, being sale deed dated 4/4/1985. It has come in the evidence of the hand writing expert Shri Pandit that one of the alphabets in vernacular and the manner in which it is appearing in the disputed signatures was different from the manner in which the alphabet is written in the admitted signatures. However, thereafter he has gone on to state that he is not definite about his opinion and he has gone on to further state that giving of the hand writing opinion is not a perfect science. It is in the said context that the Courts below have chosen to give more weightage to the direct evidence which has come on record i.e. the evidence of the witnesses of the Defendant No. 1 who were present before the registering authority.
In the said context it would be apposite to refer to the judgments of the Apex Court on the evidentiary value of the expert''s opinion which have been relied upon by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 in the above Appeals. In the judgment in Shashi Kumar Banerjee''s case (supra) the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court has observed that the expert''s evidence as to handwriting is opinion evidence and it can rarely, if ever, take the place of substantive evidence. Before acting on such evidence it is usual to see if it is corroborated either by clear direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence. The Apex Court in the said case was concerned with the expert''s opinion as contemplated in Section 45 of the Evidence Act. The said judgment of the Apex Court has been followed thereafter in the case of State of Maharashtra v/s. Sukhdeo Singh (supra). The Apex Court has reiterated in the said judgment that the expert''s evidence by way of an opinion of expert is a evidence of weak quality and needs to be corroborated. The Apex Court in Magan Bihari Lal''s case (supra) has also observed that expert opinion must always be received with great caution and perhaps none so with more caution than the opinion of a handwriting expert. The Apex Court has gone on to observe that it may be relied upon if either supported by internal or external evidence. Therefore the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgments has held that the evidence of an expert can be relied upon only if it is corroborated by other evidence.
Now coming to the aspect of whether the Courts below could have taken recourse to Section 73 of the Evidence Act. In the said context the judgment of the Apex Court in Gaudiya Mission''s case (supra) is relevant. The Apex Court has held that when an application is made to refer the matter to the hand writing expert, it is required that the said course of action be followed rather than undertake the exercise of comparison of hand writing. In the said context, it would also be useful to refer to the Judgment of the Apex Court reported in The State (Delhi Administration) Vs. Pali Ram, . It is observed by the Apex Court in the said Judgment that it is not advisable that a Judge should take upon himself the task of comparing the admitted writing with the disputed one to find out whether the two agree with each other and the prudent course is to obtain the opinion and assistance of an expert.
In the instant case as observed herein above, the expert has himself stated that he is not definite about his opinion and that it is not a perfect science. There is absolutely no evidence on record to corroborate the evidence of the expert. In so far as Section 73 of the Evidence Act is concerned, the Court has undoubtedly the power under the said provision to compare the disputed signature with the admitted signature. However though the power to compare the signatures undoubtedly exists in the Courts u/s 73 of the Evidence Act, as a matter of caution and restraint the Courts should eschew the said exercise and in the event of the slightest doubt leave it to the experts. In my view, therefore, the reliance placed by the Courts below on the evidence of the witnesses of the Defendant No. 1 cannot be taken exception to in the light of the Judgments (supra).
Now coming to the question as to whether there is perversity in the findings of the Courts below. In the said context it is required to be noted that it is not as if the Courts below have not made a reference to the evidence which has come in the cross examination of the Defendant No. 1''s witnesses. Both the Trial Court as well as the Lower Appellate Court can be said to be conscious of the evidence which has come on record in the cross examination of the witnesses of Defendant No. 1 as the Trial Court as can be seen has made a specific observation in Paragraph 12 of its judgment and order that no fruitful evidence can be said to have come in the cross examination of the witnesses of Defendant No. 1 which could support the case of the Plaintiff regarding fraud. The Lower Appellate Court has confirmed the finding of the Trial Court but has used the phraseology "unchallenged". The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant was at pains to draw my attention to the statements which were appearing in the cross examination of the witnesses of the Defendant No. 1 i.e. advocate Shri Joshi and witness Shri Narsale so as to contend that the evidence if seen in the context of the examination in chief of the said witnesses would prove that the same gives cause for suspicion as to whether the Plaintiff was present before the registering authority. In my view, the evidence as a whole has to be considered and not stray statements appearing here and there in the said evidence. The evidence of the said witnesses as can be seen is consistent that the Plaintiff was present at the time when the document in question i.e. the sale deed was drafted and also at the time when it was registered. In juxtaposition it is required to be noted that the Plaintiff has conspicuously remained absent when the examination of the said witnesses was going on in the Trial Court, and therefore, the observation of the Trial Court that the Plaintiff had advisedly not remained present for the fear of being identified by both the witnesses Shri Joshi and Shri Narsale cannot be lost sight of. As indicated herein above, there is direct evidence of the witnesses who were present before the registering authority, which evidence as rightly held by the Courts below has not been shaken in the cross examination. The registering authority has also issued a certificate which raises a presumption that the document has been validly executed. In the context of the aforesaid discussion, the challenge to the decree in question on the ground that the same suffers from perversity must fail. For the reasons afore-stated there is no warrant to remand the matter back to the Lower Appellate Court for a de-novo consideration. Since the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant Shri Kulkarni was harping upon the aspect that the Courts below ought to have undertaken the exercise u/s 73 of the Evidence Act of comparing the signatures with the admitted signatures of the Plaintiff since the record was available for perusal, this Court at the insistence of Shri Kulkarni and out of curiosity compared the admitted signatures of the Plaintiff with the disputed signatures and on such comparison this Court does not find anything which can be said to be in favour of the Plaintiff. However it is clarified that the said fact has not weighed with this Court as this Court has considered the matter independently in the light of the questions of law as framed. The questions of law as framed above therefore to stand answered accordingly. Both the above Second Appeals are accordingly dismissed with parties to bear their respective costs.