PURUSHOTTAM DAJI MANDLIK Vs. PANDURANG CHINTAMAN BIWALKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff sued the defendant to set aside a sale-deed on the ground of coercion under Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act. The plaintiff stated in the plaint that he was able to write his signature, and that the defendant with the object of getting that signature by force came to his house on the night of the 29th November 1908, and with the assistance of six men forcibly carried him away to the defendant s mandap, severely beat him and made him sign his name on the document. The plaintiff further alleged in his deposition that, on the night of 29th November 1908, he was sitting in his court-yard after taking his supper, when the defendant, who was helped by five other men, at once came up to him, gave him a blow, and asked him to sign a document shown him by defendant; that, on his persisting in refusing to sign it, he was picked up bodily by the defendant and his five comrades and taken to the mandap in front of the house of the defendant which was near by, and was there kicked and struck with blows so very severely that he nearly lost his consciousness; that his wife, who had witnessed from inside her house the assault committed on her husband, followed him when he was removed by the defendant and his comrades, crying for help all the while; that the wife, who was prevented by the threats of the defendant from entering the mandap, finding her husband being mercilessly kicked and struck with blows, cried out from the place where she was standing and advised him to sign the document rather than lose his life on account of the thrashing he was subjected to; that he, thereupon, put his signature to the document.

(2.) The defendant s allegation was that, on the night in question, the plaintiff entered his house with the object of stealing this particular document, and that whilst plaintiff was about to run away with a bundle containing this and other connected papers, he was arrested with the help of the defendant s companions.

(3.) The learned Subordinate Judge held that the plaintiff s story was not proved, and in so doing remarked that "his story as it has been unfolded in his deposition and in the depositions of his witnesses is incredible. I, therefore, come to the conclusion that the plaintiff s allegations regarding the violence used towards him and his having been subjected to severe beating are not proved. The facts show that if plaintiff was subjected to any violence by the defendant it would not have been in the manner described by the plaintiff and his witnesses." The learned Judge then proceeded to consider certain other circumstances leading up to the document in dispute, and came to the conclusion that some other kind of coercion must have been caused in consequence of which the document was signed, and he relied in coming to this conclusion very largely on his disbelief of the counter-story of the theft told by the defendant. He remarked that "the defendant says that plaintiff had entered his house with the object of stealing the document and whilst plaintiff was about to run away with a bundle of papers he was arrested. The defendant s story is that plaintiff and his comrades stole away the sale-deed" but in view of the other circumstances he came to the conclusion that "the defendant s story regarding the theft falls to the ground." The learned Judge, accordingly, gave a decree for cancellation of the document upon these final grounds : "The irresistible conclusion, therefore, is that plaintiff must not have voluntarily signed the document. He must have been made to sign it against his will. Of course, the evidence of violence is not satisfactory. I think the evidence in the case is bound to be unsatisfactory. The defendant is not expected to be so very stupid as to openly practise violence on plaintiff. It must have been done by him privately in his house by enticing plaintiff to come there. Plaintiff must have gone voluntarily to defendant s house with his turban on, and it was there that the document was ready written, and in the presence of the attesting witnesses and the writer plaintiff s signature was taken on that night, and, in accordance with the plan previously laid out, the cry was then raised of theft by the defendant. I have already stated that an exaggerated account of the violence done has been given; that the doctor proved that some violence was used against plaintiff, and it might have been that plaintiff affixed his signature out of fear of further violence. No stronger proof of the violence can be expected in this case. The circumstances warranted above prove that plaintiff must have made his signature to the document under coercion.