RAMU SHARMA Vs. R C BABBAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS case is on the Regular Board of this Court since 17.1.2011. Today it is effective item no. 2 on the Regular Board. It is 12:45 pm but no one appears for the parties. I have therefore perused the record and am proceeding to dispose of the appeal.

(2.) THE challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is to the impugned judgment and decree dated 17.5.2001 whereby the suit of the appellants for recovery of Rs.1,42,100/- was dismissed, and which recovery was claimed on the ground that a sum of Rs.70,500/- was advanced to the defendant/respondent in terms of the receipt/document/agreement dated 25.3.1998. THE respondent/defendant contested the suit on the ground that the document dated 25.3.1998 was a forged and fabricated document.

(3.) IN view of the language of the document dated 25.3.1998 and its curious formatting, I do not find any illegality and perversity in the impugned judgment and decree. The Trial Court has rightly observed that the document is forged/fabricated because it is silent as to who paid the consideration to the respondent/defendant, which was the property in question for which the transaction was entered into, who was the owner of the property for which the transaction was entered into namely Chander Prakash or someone else, whether the amount was paid for mutation or certain transaction for immovable property. Further, there are clear-cut interpolations in the documents as rightly noted by the Trial Court. I may add that the signature of the witness and the particulars of witness also seem to have been interpolated later on because it appears in different ink and different handwriting. The Trial Court has found lack of credibility in deposition of the plaintiffs and has therefore dismissed the suit.