PRATAPRAI TRUMBAKLAL MEHTA Vs. JAYANT NEMCHAND SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS chamber summons is taken out by the defendants- judgment- debtors- for an order of recording "adjustment" and satisfaction of decree dated 21st September, 1987 passed by this Court in this suit in terms of alleged agreement dated 21st April, 1990 propounded by the defendants, copy whereof is annexed as Exhibit 3 to the affidavit of defendant No. 1 dated 15th May, 1990 made in support of this chamber summons. This chamber summons raises interesting questions of law relating to interpretation and application of Order 21, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the role of a notary in attesting copy of document as certified copy. The plaintiff has alleged that the alleged agreement propounded by the defendants is a forged document and it was never executed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff decree-holder is a practising advocate. The defendant No. 1 is a builder. Oral evidence led in this case consists of the evidence of defendant No. 1, the plaintiff and one Mr. Sonavane, Advocate-Notary. Mr. Sonavane has notarised xerox copy of the abovereferred alleged agreement as true copy and placed his signature and seal on last page of bunch of papers marked Exhibit 2 in the evidence. The original of Exhibit 2 is not forthcoming. The oral evidence of the three witnesses is extremely unsatisfactory as would be shown in the later part of this judgment. Parties have tried their best to suppress the truth and give most evasive answers to the material questions. In the circumstances this chamber summons is bound to fail on the ground that the defendants have failed to prove the document propounded by them and discharge the burden of proof to prove the alleged adjustment of the decree.

(2.) SOME of the important questions arising in this proceeding are as under:---

(3.) IT shall be obvious from bare narration of facts in subsequent paragraphs of this judgment that the original transaction continues to remain shrouded in mystery and the consideration of Rs. 1 lac for sale of land and building with vacant possession of two flats of 500 sq. feet each is far too ridiculous.