THIRUVENGADA PILLAI versus NAVANEETHAMMAL & ANR.

Citation: [2008] 3 S.C.R. 23 · Decided: 19-02-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

I 
l 
[2008] 3 S.C.R. 23 
THIRUVENGADA PILLAI 
V. 
NAVANEETHAMMAL & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 290 of 2001) 
FEBRUARY 19, 2008 
(R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND P. SATHASIVAM) 
Specific Performance -
Suit for specific performance 
A 
B 
of agreement of sale - ·Execution of the deed denied by 
defendant -
Trial Court doubting the authenticity of the c 
document on the grounds that attesting witnesses were not 
reliable; the document having been written on two stamp 
papers of different dates; and onus to prove the execution of 
the document was not discharged by plaintiff having failed to 
make reference to fingerprint expert to prove the disputed 
thumb impression- Order reversed by first appellate court, 
D 
putting the onus on the defendant -
Court comparing the 
disputed thumb impression and admitted one on its own 
without the aid of expert opinion and concluding the 
impression to be that of the executor- High Court reversing 
the order of first appellate court- On appeal, held: Though 
E 
the document written on two stamp papers purchased on 
different dates is admissible, on the facts and circumstances 
of the case, its genuineness is doubtful- In view of denial of 
execution by the defendant, onus to prove the same was on 
the plaintiff - Act of the first appellate court in comparing the 
F 
disputed thumb impression with the admitted one, while the 
impression was not clear, without the aid of expert opinion is 
not proper - Stamp Act, 1899 - s. 54 - Stamp Rules, 1925 
- Evidence Act, 1872 - ss. 45 and 73 - Onus to prove. 
Plaintiff-
appellant filed a suit of specific G 
performance. He alleged that predecessor of respondent 
No.2 -
defendant (defendant No.1) entered into an 
agreement of sale dated 5.1.1980 with the appellant. 
Appellant issued a notice calling upon defendant No.1 
23 
H 
24 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2008] 3 S.C.R. 
A to execute the sale deed. The agreement was denied by 
defendant No.1. In order to avoid performance of the 
agreement, defendant No.1 executed a nominal Sale 
deed to respondent No.1 - defendant, a close relative. 
During pendency of the suit, defendant No.1 died and 
B was substituted by respondent No.2. Plaintiff examined 
himself, the scribe of the agreement and the attesting 
witness as witnesses. Trial Court dismissed the suit, 
doubting the genuineness of the agreement on the 
grounds that the agreement was written on two stamp 
C papers one of 1973 and another of 1-978 and not on 
currently purchased stamp papers; that the two attestors 
to the agreement were close relations· of the plaintiff; 
and that plaintiff failed to discharge his onus to prove 
the execution of the agreement having failed to seek 
D 
reference to fingerprint expert. 
' 
First appellate court reversed the finding of trial 
court holding that the attestors of the agreement were 
not related to plaintiffs; that the onus to prove the doubt 
raised regarding the agreement was on the defendants 
E as they doubted its genuineness; that there was no 
marked difference between the thumb impression on the 
agreement and that on the sale deed in favour of 
respondent No.1 leading to inference that the agreement 
was executed by defendant No.1; and that execution of 
the agreement on two stamp papers did not invalidate 
F the same. 
In second appeal, High Court reversed the 
judgment of first appellate court, holding that the onus 
to prove the negative was wrongly placed on the 
G defendants; that the perusal of the agreement stated 
. that the thumb impression was not clear and thus 
conclusion of the first appellate court regarding thumb 
-...: 
impression in absence of expert opinion was not correct 
and upheld the finding of trial court. 
H 
In appeal to this court ·respondent contended 
THIRUVENGADA PILLAI v. NAVANEETHAMMAL & ANR. 
25 
interalia that use of old stamp papers would invalidate A 
the agreement, firstly because the stamp papers being 
more than six 111onths old were not valid and thus the 
agreement prepared thereon was also not valid, and 
secondly because it was illegal to use stamp papers 
purchased on different dates. 
B 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The Stamp Act, 1899 nowhere prescribes 
any expiry date for use of a stamp paper. Section 54 
merely provides that a person possessing a stamp paper c 
for which he has no immediate use (which is not spoiled 
or rendered unfit or useless), can seek refund of the 
value thereof by surrendering such stamp paper to the 
Collector provided it

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