BINA BARMAN Vs. KACHARI PADA MONDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present challenge is against an order whereby the trial court rejected the petitioners' application for comparison of the signature of one Durgacharan Hati on a disputed document with that of another deed by an expert. Such prayer was refused by the trial court primarily on the ground that the plea of forgery was not incorporated in the pleadings by the plaintiffs/petitioners and that the document with which comparison was sought did not contain any admitted signature.

(2.) The plaint averments go on to show that the basis of the petitioners' claim was that the father of the plaintiffs executed the disputed document under false representation and undue influence as well as coercion. However, in the same breath, it is stated in the plaint that the document is a forged one. Even a declaration has been sought in the suit to the effect that the said purported deed of gift dated November 11, 1997 is false, forged, inoperative and (in the same breath) made out on undue influence, coercion and not acted upon and never intended to be acted upon and is not binding upon the plaintiffs. Moreover, there are no particulars of forgery/fraud mentioned in the plaint, as mandated by law.

(3.) In such view of the mater, since the allegation of forgery was stray and mutually exclusive with the allegations of undue influence, misrepresentation, etc., the trial court was justified in spirit in holding that there was no plea of forgery in the pleadings. Apart from the use of the term "forgery", nothing substantial in support of such pseudo-allegation found place in the plaint.