SYED WALLJUNDDIN Vs. RAFIQA BIBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Sec. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the judgment and decree dated 13th January, 1964, passed by the learned District Judge, Ajmer in Civil First Appeal No. 294 of 1960, affirming the judgment and decree dated 23rd August, 1960, passed by the learned Addl. Munsiff No. 1, Ajmer City, Ajmer in Civil Suit No. 140 of 1956 (183/1958 ).

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiffs-appellants filed a suit for rent and eviction of the suit premises against the defendants respondents on the basis of a registered lease deed alleged to have been executed by the defendant in his favour on 2nd April, 1947. The suit was contested only by respondent No. 1 and the suit proceeded exparte against the another respondent. The plaintiff stated in the plaint that he was a landlord of the property No. AMC 11/133 situated at Imambada Mohalla, Khadiran. Ajmer and that defendants Mst. Rafiqa Bibi and Zainul Salheem are his tenants with effect from 29th March, 1947, on a monthly rent of Rs. 10/ -. It was also contended by the plaintiff that originally the said property was leased out, to the defendants by the plaintiff along with Sheikh Fida Hussain; but. on 19th May, 1948, Sheikh Fida Hussain sold his share in this property to the plaintiff by means of a registered saledeed and since then the plaintiff has been the exclusive owner of the property and was entitled to recover its rent. According to the plaintiff, the defendants failed to pay rent and committed defaults in the payment of rent since 29th Nov. 1952. Before filing the suit, the plaintiff served a notice on the defendants on or about 28th December, 1955, terminating their tenancy. The plaintiff claimed a sum of Rs. 316/- as arrears of rent and ejectment of the defendants from the suit premises. Defendant No. 1 did not appear in the trial Court and the case proceeded exparte against him. Defendant No. 1 denied the tenancy and contended that she never paid any rent to the plaintiff. It was contended by defendant No. 1 that about 9 to 10 years ago, defendant No. 1 executed a document at the instance of defendant No. 2, alleged to be in respect of some money transaction. It was also contended that while reposing full confidence in defendant No. 2 and believing him in what he was then representing, the defendant had executed the document without the same having been read out and explained its contents to her. Defendant No. 1 also pleaded that she is an illiterate and Pardanashin lady. She also pleaded that no lease-deed was ever executed by her in respect of the suit premises much less in favour of the plaintiff and Sheikh Fida Hussain and, if the above document executed by the instance of defendant is the same as alleged by the plaintiff it is absolutely fraudulent, illegal, void and inoperative against her.

(3.) RELIANCE has also been placed by Shri Bhandari on Govind Ram v. Abdul Wahab (2) in which the following observations were made by this Court :- "there is authority for holding that the execution or authorship of a document is a question of fact and can be proved like any other fact by direct as well as circumstantial evidence, although it must be further promised that the circumstantial evidence must be of sufficient strength to carry conviction. It has been further laid down that Section 67 does not lav down any specific mode of proof, and therefore, circumstantial evidence as a mode of proof of authorship or execution of documents is not excluded as a legitimate method of proving a document and such evidence may consist of the internal evidence contained in the document itself about the execution of which there is a dispute and the oral evidence of the witnesses to prove other surrounding circumstances. "