FEHMIDI Vs. IV UPPER DISTRICT JUDGE SAHARANPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. The petitioners seek writ of certiorari quashing the judg ment and decree passed by the Judge Small Causes Court, respondent No. 2, dated 24-5-1996 and the judgment dated 23-4-1997 passed by respondent No. 1 dismissing the revision against the aforesaid order.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 3 filed Suit No. 69 of 1994 for recovery of arrears of rent, eject ment and damages for use and occupation of the disputed property on the allegation that plaintiff-respondent No. 3 purchased the property in question on 10-2-1984 from its erstwhile owner Nazir Khan. The defen dant- petitioners were tenants of this property on monthly rent of Rs. 10/ -. The plaintiff sent a notice to the defendant on 14-9-1984, after purchase of the said property, intimating that he had purchased the said property and is entitled to receive the rent. The defendant did not pay the rent to the plaintiff. A notice dated 3rd Septem ber, 1993 was given demanding arrears of rent and terminating their tenancy. Another notice dated 28-4-1994 was given to the same effect but the defendants gave a wrong reply. Hence the suit.

(3.) THE attesting witnesses are required to be produced to prove a document when such a document is required by law to be attested. A will is required to be attested under Section 63 of Indian Cessation Act. A mortgage-deed is required to be attested under Section 59 of the Transfer of Property Act. THEre is no provision under the Trans fer of Property Act which requires attesta tion of a sale-deed. If a person relies upon a sale-deed it is not necessary for him to prove it by producing the attesting witnesses. He is required to prove the document as provided under Section 67 of the Evidence Act which provides the manner of proof of a docu ment. It requires that if a document is al leged to be signed or to have been written wholly or in part by any person, the signa ture or the hand writing of so much of the document as is alleged to be of that person's hand-writing must be proved to be in his own hand-writing. If the person relying upon the document proves the signature or the hand-writing of the executants of the document, the document is said to have been proved. In Gajraj and others v. Board of Revenue, UP. , Allahabad and others, 1966 ALJ 149, it has been held that in order to prove the writing of a person it is not neces sary that the person must know the language in which the document has been written. If he deposes that the execution has been made in his presence and he has seen the executant putting his signatures in his presence, the document stands proved.