SUNDER LAL Vs. RAJA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the appellant and caveator/respondents and perused the record.

(2.) IT comes out from record that a suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 20. 12. 1983 was filed before the Trial Court mainly on the ground of forgery and impersonation. The Trial Court framed four issues. The main two issues were in respect of the cancellation of sale deed on the grounds mentioned in the plaint and on the point of possession. The report of hand writing experts were filed from both the sides. In oral evidence from the side of the plaintiff besides himself, the only other witness examined was the hand writing expert. From the side of the defendant besides one of the defendants, Zakir Ali D. W. 2 was examined on the point of possession and Mansha Ram D. W. 4 was examined as witness of sale deed. Besides one hand writing expert was also examined.

(3.) ON issue No. 1 pertaining to cancellation of sale deed dated 20. 12. 1983 the Lower Court found that the prayer was for cancellation of sale deed dated 20. 12. 1983 as pleaded but the copy of some another sale deed dated 14. 12. 1983 was filed. Secondly, after evaluation of the oral evidence the Trial Court found that the plaintiff has examined only himself in his favour. No other witness was examined by him in support of his case. On the other hand, from the defendants' side besides one of the defendants, one witness of sale deed namely mansha Ram was also examined who deposed that the sale deed was executed by plaintiff. The Trial Court also found the endorsement regarding passing of the consideration made by the Sub-Registrar as reliable. Such a presumption is, of course, rebuttable but it was found that the plaintiff could not rebut it by adducing any credible evidence. In respect of expert report filed from both the sides it was found that on the day when the plaintiff had to give his thumb-impression he came before the Court around 12. 00 noon saying that his thumb had been chopped off by the other side when he was coming to the Court. This allegation was denied from the other side. It was found that had it been so the plaintiff could have first gone to the hospital for first aid and then would have lodged report at some police station. But both the things were found wanting. However, in the circumstances, the plaintiff's application for referring his admitted signature on a vakalatnama in another Suit No. 185 of 1986 was allowed and the same was sent for comparison. As usual, the reports of the finger print experts from both the sides were in favour of their respective clients. In view of the finger print expert report versus another finger print expert's report the Trial Court could not find any better case in favour of the plaintiff. One particular reason was also assigned by the Trial Court for not giving any credence to the expert reports. In the above vakalatnama besides the thumb-impression, signature of the plaintiff were also found appended which is against the normal practice. The Court below therefore could not place much reliance on the alleged admitted signature of the plaintiff. Therefore both the expert reports dealing with that signature were also not found worth relying. The Court below adhered to the basic principle that the plaintiff has to stand on his own legs to prove his case. In comparison to plaintiff's sole evidence in his favour the Court below found the evidence adduced from the side of the defendant more probable and believable which consisted of one of the defendants and one witness of sale deed and therefore decided this main issue against the plaintiff.