Bombay High Court

Dinesh Vasantrai Bhuta vs Mrs. Vasantben Harvilas Jani on 14 November, 2011

Bench: G. S. Godbole

                                                -1-                              caw-956-2011


    srj
                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                                                      
                             CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION




                                                              
                              WRIT PETITION NO.3190 OF 2011
                                           WITH
                             CIVIL APPLICATION NO.956 OF 2011




                                                             
          Dinesh Vasantrai Bhuta                         ]
          Aged 62 years, 49, Asmita Building,            ]
          Ground Floor, N. S. Road No.3,                 ]




                                                 
          Juhu Scheme Vile Parle,                        ]
          Mumbai 400 049.                                ]      ..      Applicant/ 

                      V/s.
                                  ig                     ]              Petitioner.


          Mrs. Vasantben Harvilas Jani                   ]
                                
          widow of Harvilas K. Jani @ Batukbhai          ]
          K. Jani, Aged     years, 49, Asmita Building   ]
          Ground Floor, N. S. Road No.3,                 ]
          Juhu Scheme Vile Parle,                        ]
             


          Mumbai 400 049.                                ]      ..      Respondent.
          



          Mr. Andhyarjuna along with Mr. Devrat Dharkar i/b. Mr. Parag Sharma, for 
          the Applicant.





          Mr. Kamal Katha along with Mr. A. K. S. Vani i/b. M.L.S. Vani & Associates, 
          for the Respondent.


                                           CORAM               :  G.S.GODBOLE,J.

                                           RESERVED ON        :  29th AUGUST, 2011
                                           PRONOUNCED ON  :  14th NOVEMBER, 2011. 



          JUDGMENT:-


          1           On   29th  August,   2011,   the   hearing   of   the   Petition   was 





                                               -2-                               caw-956-2011


    concluded and the Judgment was reserved.




                                                                                     
    2             RULE.  Rule made returnable forthwith and heard by consent

of the parties. Mr. Vani, Advocate for the Respondent waives service.

3 The Petitioner is the Original Plaintiff in RAD Suit No.35 of

1998 which has been filed in the Court of Small Causes at Mumbai under

Section 28 of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947. It is the case of the Plaintiff

that he is the monthly tenant of the Defendant/ Landlord in respect of the

flat ad-measuring 2121 sq. feet on the ground floor of the building known

as "Asmita" at Vile Parle (W), Bombay. The Plaintiff has pleaded that the

suit premises were let out to him in the year 1969 and it is his further case

that though the rent was agreed to be Rs.1,300/- per month, the

Defendant stated that if the rent is shown high, property tax would be

charged at higher rate, that a Leave and License Agreement was kept

ready by the Defendants which showed that a near relative of the

Defendant - named Mr. Fulshankar L. Joshi was shown as Licensor and

the Plaintiff was shown as a Licensee. It is the case of the Plaintiff that

this document was created as camouflage.



    4             The Defendant filed Written Statement in the said suit on 11th 





                                                 -3-                                caw-956-2011

August, 1998 and in respect of the aforesaid Leave and License

Agreement, the Defendant contended that there was n privity of contract

between the Plaintiff and the Defendant that the Plaintiff is neither the

tenant or sub-tenant nor a Licensee of the Defendant. In para 4 of the

Written Statement, it was contended that Defendant is the owner of the

building namely - "Asmita", that a Leave and License Agreement dated 4 th

November, 1969 was executed between Plaintiff and Mr. Fulshankar Joshi,

where the said Fulshankar Joshi was inducted as Licensee. In para 4 (c),

the Defendant pleaded that Agreement was executed between the Plaintiff

and Mr. Fulshankar Joshi, on 1st February, 1970 and it was further pleaded

that a copy of the said Leave and License Agreement would be produced.

5 At the trial of the suit, the Plaintiff filed Affidavit of

Examination In Chief and in para 5 thereon, it was stated that the

Defendant had obtained the signature of the Plaintiff on the said

document by mis-representation, wherein the Plaintiff was shown as

Licensee of Fulshankar Joshi.

6 During the course of cross examination of the Plaintiff, a

notice to produce the original Leave and License Agreement dated 1st

February, 1970 executed between Fulshankar Joshi and the Plaintiff was

-4- caw-956-2011

served on the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff was asked to produce the

document. In reply, the Plaintiff replied that he had not brought the

original Leave and License Agreement and thereafter the Plaintiff made a

voluntarily statement that the original Leave and License Agreement was

never given to him and he has never produced the same. At this stage, the

Plaintiff was shown a carbon copy of the Leave and License Agreement

dated 1st February, 1970 and admitted his signature on the said document.

The Defendant, thereafter, filed his Affidavit of Examination

In Chief and list of documents on 11th June, 2010. A question regarding

admissibility of the document and particularly the document at serial no.5

which was a carbon copy of the Leave and License Agreement was taken

up and the Learned Judge of the Trial Court passed order dated 19 th July,

2010, whereby the learned Judge declined to exhibit the said copy of

Leave and License Agreement. The carbon copy was marked as Article "Y"

and the photo copy which was produced with the Affidavit was marked as

Article "Y-1".

8 After passing of this order, the Defendant filed application

below Exhibit 45 in the suit and prayed for exhibiting the carbon copy on

which the signature had been admitted by the Plaintiff and further prayed

-5- caw-956-2011

for reading the carbon copy in evidence. This application was opposed by

the Plaintiff. By the Judgment and Order dated 12th August, 2010 (Exhibit

F), the learned Judge of the Small Causes presiding in Court Room No.37,

dismissed the said application. The Defendant had relied upon the

Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Nawab Singh v/s. Inderjit

Kaur, reported in AIR 1999, S.C. 16681. The learned Judge held that the

Defendant was not entitled to lead the secondary evidence because in the

cross examination, the Plaintiff has denied the the Original copy of

Agreement is with the Plaintiff.

9 Aggrieved by this order, the Defendant/ Respondent herein

filed Revision Application No.182 of 2010 and by impugned Judgment

and Order dated 23rd February, 2011, the Division Bench of the Court of

Small Causes allowed the said revision application and the Trial Court was

directed to exhibit the carbon copy of the Agreement dated 1st February,

1970 which had been marked as "Y" and it was also directed that the said

copy should be read in evidence.

10 Mr. Zal Andhyarujina, the learned Advocate appearing for the

Petitioner advanced the following submissions:-

    1      AIR 1999, S.C. 1668





                                                 -6-                               caw-956-2011


    (i)       The   order   dated   19th  June,   2010   about   the   admissibility   of   the

document had attained finality and the same has not been challenged and,

hence, the application at Exhibit 45 was not maintainable. Relying on

Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, it was submitted that the

original document was not produced by the Plaintiff and, hence, unless it

was conclusively proved that the original is lost or destroyed or is in the

custody of some other person, who was not ready to produce the

document, secondary evidence could not have been permitted to be led.

(ii) Relying on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ashok

Dulichand v/s. Madahavlal Dube and another (1975) 4 - SCC-664 :

AIR SC 17482 and particularly para 7 thereof, it was submitted that unless

requirement of Section 65 are fulfilled in all respects, secondary evidence

cannot be permitted. Relying on Judgment of the Supreme Court in the

case of Gangamma and others v/s. Shivalingaiah, reported in (2005) 9

SCC-3593 (paragraphs 7 & 8), it was contended that Section 90 only

raises the presumption but it nowhere provided that in terms of that

Section apart from the authenticity, the recital contained in the document

is also presumed to be correct. Even if the formal execution of a

document is proved, the same by itself cannot lead to a presumption that

2 AIR SC 1748 3 (2005) 9 SCC-359

-7- caw-956-2011

the recitals contained therein are also correct.

(iii) Relying on the Judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court

(Coram: S. B. Deshmukh, J.) in the case of Ramdas Bhatu Chaudhary

v/s. Anant Chunilal Kate, reported in 2006 (6), Mah.L. J. 5714

(paragraph 10), it was submitted that the party must produce primary

evidence and only in certain circumstances, enumerated under Section 65,

secondary evidence can be permitted.

(iv) Relying on the Judgment of another learned Single Judge ( Coram:

V. C. Daga,J.) in the case of Bank of Baroda, Bombay v/s. Shree Moti

Industries, Bombay and others, reported in (2009) (1), Mah. L. J.-2825,

on the observations in paragraphs 25 to 29, it was submitted that the

secondary evidence of the contents of documents is not admissible until

non production of the original is first accounted for.

(v) The Judgment in the case of Quamarul Islam v/s. S. K. Kanta and

others, reported in 1994 Supp (3) SCC-56 was also relied upon.

However, prima facie, the ratio in the said Judgment is not applicable to

the facts of the case. Relying upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in

4 2006 (6), Mah.L. J. 571 5 (2009) (1), Mah. L. J.-282 6 1994 Supp (3) SCC-5

-8- caw-956-2011

the case of J. Yashoda v/s. K. Sobharani (2007)- 5 SCC-7307

(paragraphs 7), it was submitted that secondary evidence is generally

admissible only in the absence of the primary evidence and can be given

only in the absence of the better evidence which may required to be given

first.

(vi) Relying upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of

State of H. P. and Others v/s. Akshara Nand (dead) by legal heirs and

others, reported in (2000)3 SCC-6618, it was contended that the revision

could not have been allowed.

11 The learned Advocate for the Respondent on the other hand

supported the Judgment and advanced the following submissions:-

(a) The Division Bench of the Court of Small Causes has properly

exercised the jurisdiction vested in it by law and, since there is no

perversity in the finding and no error of jurisdiction, no case for

interference under Article 227 has been made out.

(b) Relying on paragraph 5 of the Affidavit Of Examination In Chief of

the Plaintiff, it was contended that the Plaintiff has specifically admitted 7 (2007)- 5 SCC-730 8 (2000)3 SCC-661

-9- caw-956-2011

the signature on the Leave and License Agreement and what was

produced during cross examination was the carbon copy and the Plaintiff

has admitted his signature thereon. Relying upon section 62 of the Indian

Evidence Act, 1872, it was submitted that carbon copy was itself primary

evidence and, hence, it has rightly been directed to be exhibited. It was

submitted that in any case, the carbon copy would be admissible as

Secondary Evidence in view of Section 63 (2) and since the Plaintiff failed

to produce the original despite service of notice, the Plaintiff was not

entitled to oppose the production of the carbon copy.

Narbada Devi Gupta v/s. Birendra Kumar Jaiswal and another,

reported in (2003)8 SCC-7459 (paragraphs 16 and 17), it was submitted

that execution of documents is to be proved by admissible evidence and in

a case where the document is produced and signature on the document is

admitted, the document has to be read in evidence. Reliance was also

placed on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of P. C.

Purushothama Reddiar v/s. S. Perumal reported in (1972) 1- SCC-9 :

AIR 1972- SC-60810. It was submitted that the Plaintiff had admitted the

signature on the carbon copy, hence, there was no further burden on the

9 (2003)8 SCC-745 10 AIR 1972- SC-608

- 10 - caw-956-2011

Defendant to lead any additional evidence for proof of the contents of the

carbon copy. Relying on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case

of T. Mohan v/. Kannammal and another reported in (2002) 10

SCC-8211, it was submitted that foundation had been led to accept the

secondary evidence.

(d) Relying on the Judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court

(Coram: V. S. Sirpurkar J.) (as he was then), reported in 1998(1) Bom. C.

R. 63112 and the observations in paragraphs 11 and 12, it was contended

that once the signature on the document was proved to be that of the

Plaintiff, there would be no reason to doubt the said document regarding

the versity of the contents thereof.

(e) Relying on the observations in the Judgment of the Supreme Court

in the case of Grasim Industries Limited v/s. Agarwal Steel, reported in

(2010)1 SCC-8313 in paragraph 6 it was contended that once the person

is shown to have singed the document, there is presumption that he has

read the document properly.



    (f)    Reliance was also placed on the observations made in the  Division 

    11 (2002) 10 SCC-82
    12 1998(1) Bom. C. R. 631
    13 (2010)1 SCC-83





                                                 - 11 -                             caw-956-2011

Bench Judgment of this Court (Coram: M. L. Pendse and A. A. Cazi JJ) in

the case of Byramjee Jeejebhoy Private Ltd. v/s. Govindbhai A. Bhatte

and Others, reported in 1994(1) Bom. C. R. 21114 in paragraph 14 it was

submitted that once the factum of the execution is proved, the document

stands proved and it is wholly irrelevant whether the contents are proved

or not.

12 In rejoinder, Mr. Andhyarjuna relied upon paragraph 6 of the

Affidavit of the Defendant in lieu of Examination In Chief and the Written

Statement and contended that the statement made in paragraph 6 of the

Affidavit was beyond the averments in the Written Statement. Relying on

the written statement it was submitted that the Defendant has never

claimed that the original Agreement was with the Plaintiff.

13 I have carefully considered the rival contentions. This is a

peculiar case where in my opinion, the factum of execution of the

disputed Leave and License Agreement dated 1st February, 1970 is not in

dispute. This is clear from the averments in the Plaint, as also the

averments contained in the Affidavit of Plaintiff in lieu of Examination In

Chief. Perusal of the Plaint in RAD Suit No.35 of 1998 shows that

according to the Plaintiff, allegedly by mis-representation, the Agreement

14 1994(1) Bom. C. R. 211

- 12 - caw-956-2011

of Leave and License which was already kept ready and was made in the

name of Fulshankar Joshi as Licensor and the Plaintiff as Licensee, was got

signed. Plaintiff contended that the said Fulshankar Joshi had never

occupied the suit premises and the suit premises were directly let out to

the Plaintiff by the Defendant. In paragraph 4 of the Plaint,it is stated

thus:-

" ........... The said purported Agreement of Leave and

License between the said Fulshankar Labhshankar Joshi and the Plaintiff is a camouflage Agreement and it is not at all binding

upon the Plaintiff and it could not have bound and can not bind the Plaintiff as the said Fulshankar Labhshankar Joshi never had any right of howsoever nature in the suit premises."

14 The Plaintiff himself did not produce the disputed Agreement.

The case of the Plaintiff as stated in his Affidavit of Examination In Chief

is as under:-

" ................... The Defendant assured me that the Defendant would not act upon the said Agreement and

represented that he obtained my signature on the said Agreement of Leave and licence only to keep it as an record that the monthly amount recoverable from me of the suit premises was Rs.1300/-. I had not been read over the entire contents of the said purported Agreement of Leave and License, nor did I

also read the contents of the same as I believed the representation and assurance of the Defendant and was i dire need of the accommodation. The Defendant did not give any copy of the said purported Agreement of Leave and License to me."

When the Plaintiff was given notice to produce the document during

the course of his cross examination on 12th March, 2010, he accepted

- 13 - caw-956-2011

service of notice to produce the document and thereafter stated thus:-

" ............. I have not brought the original Leave and License Agreement with me today. Witness volunteers that the said original Leave and License Agreement was never given to

me due to which I am unable to produce it."

" I am now shown the carbon copy of Leave and License Agreement dated 01/02/1970 produced on record today. It is true that it bears my signature".

He has further admitted that:-

"Ans: I admit that I have signed the copy produced today but I

do not remember how many papers I had signed. I also do not know how many copies of the Agreement were got prepared.

Any copy or original of said Agreement was never handed over to me."

15 In this background, it is necessary to consider the provisions

of Sections 62 to 66 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Section 62

indicates as to what is the primary evidence. Section 63 indicates as to

what is secondary evidence. Section 65 provides for the cases in which

secondary evidence may be given and evidence regarding existence,

contents or conditions of the documents. It is now necessary to consider

the submissions of the Petitioner and the alternate argument of the

learned Advocate for the Respondent. Execution of original and copy is

also admitted in view of the oral evidence of the Plaintiff. The second

Judgment relied upon by the learned Advocate for the Petitioner in the

case of Ashok Dulichand (supra), has no application to the facts of the

- 14 - caw-956-2011

case. In that case, there was no notice to produce served under Section

66. The circumstances under which the copy was prepared were not

accepted and the High Court had recorded the finding of the fact that the

photo-stat copy was suspicious. In that context, the observations which

have been relied upon by the Petitioner were made in paragraph 17. The

facts of the present case are entirely different.

16 The third Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of

Gangamma (supra) deals with the presumption available under Section

90 of the Evidence Act. In the present case, the entire burden of showing

that the document dated 1st February, 1970 allegedly is a camouflage is on

the Plaintiff. The carbon copy is admittedly signed by the Plaintiff. The

Plaintiff will have to prove that his case falls in one of the excepted

categories provided by Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and

that is the matter which has to be considered by the trial Court after

completion of the evidence and hearing the submissions. In fact, Section

90 raises a rebutable presumption. Existence of the document is not

denied by the Plaintiff but only correctness of the contents is disputed and

that is the matter which will have to be considered in accordance with the

law on the basis of the provisions of Sections 90 to 92 by the Trial Court.

                                               - 15 -                             caw-956-2011


    17             The Judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the

case of Ramdas Bhatu Chaudhary (supra) is also of little assistance to

the Plaintiff. In that case, a notice to produce the document was given to

the Plaintiff. That was a suit for possession and mandatory injunction and

the Defendant therein had pleaded Agreement for Sale dated 15th October,

1984. In that case, though the notice to produce the document was given

in respect of the Agreement for Sale dated 15th October, 1984, the same

was immediately replied by the Plaintiff by denying the execution of the

Agreement and no foundation in the Written Statement has been laid by

the Defendant showing execution of the said Agreement. In the present

case, the Plaintiff has himself gone to the Court with a specific case of

execution of the document and when the notice to produce the document

was given, the same was not replied and the first answer of the Plaintiff

was that he has not brought original to the Court. Thereafter, his

voluntary statement seeks to disown the custody of the original. Be that

as it may, the Plaintiff has himself pleaded about the execution of the

document and the copy and has taken a stand that the document was in

fact a camouflage. In my opinion, the existence and contents of the

document as also the signature on the document clearly stand proved.

The Judgment in the case of Quamarul Islam (supra) is on entirely

different issue. Though the observations in paragraph 49 were sought to

- 16 - caw-956-2011

be relied upon, that was a case regarding the news paper and the news

item and contents of speech and, hence, the ratio of that Judgment is also

not applicable.

18 The Judgment in the case of J. Yashoda (supra) will also not

advanced the case of the Petitioner for the simple reason that in the

present case, the averments in the Plaint and Examination In Chief of the

Plaintiff shows the execution and existence of the document and though

the existence or the contents of the document are not denied; the

correctness of the contents is denied by contending that real intention of

the parties was to create a tenancy and that there was no privity of

contract between the Plaintiff/ Petitioner and Fulshankar Joshi.

19 The last Judgment relied upon by the learned Advocate for

the Petitioner in the case of State of H. P. and another (supra) is not

applicable to the facts of this case.

20 In paragraph 7 of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the

case of Ashok Dulichand (supra) it is observed thus:-

"After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the order of the High Court in this respect calls for no interference. According to clause (a) of section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, secondary

- 17 - caw-956-2011

evidence may be given of the existence, condition or contents of a document when the original is shown or

appears to be in the possession or power of the person against whom the document is sought to be proved, or of any person out of reach of, or not subject to, the process

of the Court, or of any person legally bound to produce it, and when, after the notice mentioned in section 66, such person does not produce it. Clauses (b) to (g) of section 65 specify some other contingencies wherein

secondary evidence relating to a document may be given, but we are not concerned with those clauses as it is the common case of the parties that the present case is not covered by those clauses. In order to bring his case

within the purview of clause (a) of section 65, the appellant filed applications on July 4, 1973, before

respondent No. 1 was examined as a witness, praying that the said respondent be ordered to produce the original manuscript of which, according to the appellant, he had

filed photostat copy. Prayer was also made by the appellant that in case respondent No. 1 denied that the said manuscript had been written by him, the photostat copy might be got examined from a

handwriting expert. The appellant also filed Affidavit in support of his applications. It was, however, nowhere

stated in the Affidavit that the original document of which the photostat copy had been filed by the appellant was in the possession of respondent No. 1. There was also no other material on the record to indicate that the original

document was in the possession of respondent No. 1.

The appellant further failed to explain as to what were the circumstances under which the photostat copy was prepared and who was in possession of the original document at the time its photograph was taken.

Respondent No. 1 in his Affidavit denied being in possession of or having anything to do with such a document. The photostat copy appeared to the High Court to be not above suspicion. In view of all the circumstances, the High Court came to the conclusion that no foundation had been laid by the appellant for leading secondary evidence in the shape of the photostat copy. We find no infirmity in the above order of the High Court as might justify interference by this Court."

                                                - 18 -                             caw-956-2011


    21              In   the   case   of  P.   C.   Purushothama   Reddiar   (supra),  the 




                                                                                       
    Supreme Court has held that:-




                                                               
             "       Once a document is properly admitted, the contents of

that document are also admitted in evidence though, those contents may not be conclusive evidence."

22 In the case of Narbada Devi Gupta (supra), it is observed

thus:-

" It is well settled that a case which has not been pleaded in the plaint cannot be made out by evidence. It is also well

settled that signatures to the documents having been admitted or proved, the contents thereof automatically go into evidence, when the documents were admitted into evidence without objection."

23 In the case of Mrs. Cynthia Martin Wd/o A. V. Martin v/s.

Prembehari s/o. Makhanlal Yadu & Another reported in 1998(1) Bom.

C. R. 63115, it is observed in paragraph 12 that:-

" By the said letter, it was informed by the competent authority that the house was not situated in the slum area. Shri

De submitted that the only witness, who has been examined, has not been able to give any details regarding the said letter and mere proof of the signature would not amount to the proof of the contents of the letter. It is true that mere proof of the signature could not prove the contents of the letter. However, that is not a case here. The letter is clear enough, and once the letter is proved by proving the signature of the maker thereof, there would hardly be any reason to doubt the same regarding

15 1998(1) Bom. C. R. 631

- 19 - caw-956-2011

the veracity of the contents therein."

24 In the case of Grasim Industries Limited (supra), following

observation made in paragraph 6:-

" In our opinion, when a person signs a document, there is a presumption, unless there is proof of force or fraud, that he

has read the document properly and understood it and only then he has affixed his signatures thereon, otherwise no signature on a document can ever be accepted.

..................... Hence, it is difficult to accept the contention of the respondent while admitting that the

document, Ext. D-8 bears his signatures that it was signed under some mistake."

25 In the case of Byramjee Jeejeebhoy Private Limited (supra),

the following observation was made:-

" ..................... The learned trial Judge curiously declined

to exhibit the document and marked it for identification s Ex. X/6 on the ground that even if the signature of the vendor on the document is proved, unless the contents are proved, the document cannot be admitted. We are afraid we cannot share

the view of the learned trial Judge. The document stands proved as soon as the fact of execution is proved and it is wholly irrelevant whether the contents are proved. The proof of contents of the document may be necessary in a given case, but the proof of document and the evidentiary value are two

distinct and different factors."

26 In view of the aforesaid legal position and in the peculiar

facts of this case, where the Plaintiff has himself pleaded that the

document is a camouflage, once the Plaintiff has admitted his signature

- 20 - caw-956-2011

on the carbon copy, the document stands proved and has been rightly

exhibited. Obviously, this will not preclude the Plaintiff from establishing

his case as alleged that there was no privity of contract between himself

and Fulshankar Joshi or that the real intention of the Petitioner and the

Respondent thereto was to create tenancy nor will this preclude the

Defendant from showing that there was no privity of contract between the

Petitioner and the Respondent. All these questions will have to be and/are

kept open for adjudication before the trial Court. In my opinion, the