NARBADA DEVI GUPTA versus BIRENDRA KUMAR JAISWAL AND ANR.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 90 · Decided: 03-11-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SHIVARAJ V. PATIL · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
NARBADA DEV'. GUPTA 
V. 
BIRENDRA KUMAR JAISWAL AND ANR. 
NOVEMBER 3, 2003 
B 
[SHIVARAJ V. PATIL AND D.M. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ.] 
Evidence Act, I 872-Documentary Evidence-Proof of execution-Suit 
for recovery of possession of suit premises alleging forcible possession-
C Defendant's claim to be in possession as a tenant-Production of rent-receipts 
having signature of plaintiff-Admission of signature by plaintiff-Documents 
marked as exhibits-Admissibility and evidentiary value of the rent receipts-
Decree of suit by trial Court-Dismissal of appeal by High Court-On appeal, 
held: Suit liable to be dismissed-The documents are admissible as the same 
and the signatures thereon were admitted and they were marked as exhibits. 
D 
Original plaintiff (proforma respondent in the appeal) filed suit for 
recovery of possession of the suit premises alleging wrongful and forcible 
possession by the contesting respondent-defendant. Appellant was the 
transferee of the suit property. It was pleaded in the plaint that certain 
blank stamp papers thumb marked and signed by the plaintiff were given 
E to the defendant authorizing him to represent them in various pending 
litigations. Respondent-defendant, in his written statement, claimed to be 
in possession of suit premises as tenant. In order to prove the tenancy, 
apart from oral evidence he produced rent receipts with thumb 
impressions thereon of the landlady and endorsement of plaintiff on the 
F back portions of the receipts. Despite specific plea of tenancy, plaintiff did 
not make any consequential amendment to plaint as to how blank printed 
rent receipts came to be thumb marked and signed by him. After 
examination of the plaintiff, his having admitted his signatures on the rent 
receipts, the same were marked as exhibits. Trial Court decreed the suit 
concluding that defendant had somehow access to the rent bill kept by 
G plaintiff and the same were utilized for fabricating the rent receipts. 
H 
Appeal to High Court was allowed holding that in the face of specific plea 
of tenancy, onus to prove the signatures on the back of the receipts was 
on the plaintiff. 
90 
"'I 
NARBADA DEVI GUPTA v. BIRENDRA KUMAR JAISWAL 
91 
In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that mere admission of A 
signature of the plaintiff on the back portion of rent receipts and their 
· marking as exhibits by Court cannot be taken as due proof of execution 
of the rent receipts. 
Respondent contended that plaintiff having not disputed his 
signatures and the documents having been marked exhibits, there was no B 
necessity to lead any further evidence by respondent-defendant to prove 
writings on the. receipts and their due execution. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. High Court rightly took a view that in face of the specific C 
plea of tenancy by the tenant based on rent receipts, onus of proof, in fact, 
lay on the plaintiff to explain how blank printed rent receipts came to be 
signed by him on their back portions. What has been pleaded is that 
certain signed stamped blank papers were given to the defendant to be 
used for the pending litigations of the landlady and for administration of D 
her estate. The plaintiff failed to lead any evidence to show what were those 
pending litigations and what was the occasion and necessity to sign printed 
blank receipts at their back by the plaintiff. (97-B-D) 
2. Mere production and marking of a document as exhibit by the 
court cannot be held to be a due proof of its contents. Its execution has to E 
be proved by admissible evidence that is by the 'evidence of those persons 
who can vouchsafe for the truth of the facts in issue'. The situation is, 
however, different where the documents are produced, they are admitted 
by the -opposite party, signatures on them are also admitted and they are 
marked thereafter as exhibits by the court. It cannot be said that as the 
mark of exhibits has been put on the back portions of the rent receipt near F 
the place where the admitted signatures of the plaintiff appear, the rent 
receipts as a whole cannot be treated to have been exhibited as an admitted 
document. [96-F-H] 
' 
Dattatraya v. Rangnath Gopalrao Kawathekar (dead) Thr Lrs., AIR G 
(1971) SC 2548; Kamji Dayawala and Sons (P) Ltd v. Invest Import, (1981) 
1 SCC 80 and Om Prakash Berl/a and Anr. v. Unit Trust of India and Ors., 
AIR (1983) Bombay t, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 315 of 1998. 
H 
92 
SUPREM

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.