KALU Vs. BACHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision application under sec. 10(2) of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, against an order of the S. D. O. Kotputli, dated 28-2-1955 refusing protection to the applicant under sec. 7 of the Ordinance.

(2.) I have heard the parties and have examined the record as well. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant has frankly conceded that the appraisement of the oral evidence arrived at by the lower court is not open to much challenge. The trial court has given cogent reasons for disbelieving the evidence of the applicant as against that of the opposite party and no perversity or absurdity has been shown to exist in the process of reasoning adopted out by the lower court. His contention however, is that the documentary evidence produced by the applicant was wrongly discarded. The documentary evidence consists of three pattas alleged to have been executed by the opposite party Bachan Singh in St years 2005, 2007 and 2008 and a copy of settlement Khasra for Svt. 2010 Svt. 2010 is the year dispute and hence the entry in the settlement Khasra being subsequent to the institution of the present application for reinstatement is not of much avail. As regards the patta the opposite party denied their execution. The trial court has held that Exhibit P.I. (Svt. 2005) was proved to have been executed by Bachan Singh but that the execution of the subsequent patta was not so proved. I have no hesitation in holding that none of these three pattas stand legally proved in the case. As provided in sec. 67 Indian Evidence Act "if a document is alleged to have been signed by any person the signature as is alleged to be in that person's handwriting must be so proved." A documents does not prove itself nor is an unproved signature on it proof of its having been written or signed by the person whose signature it purports to bear. The section, however, does not lay down any particular mode of proving the signature. Any mode of proof that is recognised by the Act may in the circumstances of the case be considered sufficient. The following are the modes of proving a signature or writing recognized by the Indian Evidence Act. (Monir's law of Evidence, page 550) - (i) By calling the person who signed or wrote the document; (ii) By calling a person in whose presence the document was signed or written. (iii) By calling a handwriting expert. (iv) By calling a person acquainted with the handwriting of the person by whom the document is supposed to be signed or written. (v) By comparing in Court the disputed signature or writing with some admitted signature or writing. (vi) By proof of an admission by the person who is alleged to have signed or written the document that he signed or wrote it. (vii) By the statement of a deceased professional scribe made in the ordinary course of business that the signature on the document is that of a particular person. (viii) A signature is proved to have been made if it is shown to have been made at the request of a person by some of these persons e.g. by the scribe who signed on behalf of the executant. (ix) By other circumstantial evidence. In the present case none of these modes was adopted by the applicant. Exhibit P. is alleged to have been written by Banshi Ram and Exhibits P. 2 and P. 3 by Gyarsi Ram. None of these pattas bears the signatures of any attesting witnesses. Banshiram and Gyarsiram, scribes of pattas, were not produced on the ground that they had gone to out side places. One Chandra was produced who deposed that these pattas are written by Gyarsiram and Bansi Ram. The facts that have been elucidated by the opposite party during the cross-examination of these witnesses are sufficient to reduce the credibility of the witnesses to naught. He has frankly expressed his inability to read any of these pattas and hence his recognition of their being in the handwriting of Gyarsi Ram and Banshi Ram can hardly be of any significance. Even if it be assumed for a moment that the statement of the witnesses is correct, a fact which is extremely doubtful, it would hardly be of any help to the applicant for this witness has not stated that Bachan Singh ever signed these pattas in his presence. What the applicant was required to prove was the fact that these patta were executed by Bachan Singh. The learned counsel for the applicant has frankly conceded that there is no evidence on this point. There is thus no serious objection to the validity of the fundings of the lower court. The applicant failed to establish his possession and dispossession within three months of the presentation of the application in the lower court. The revision is hereby rejected.