Delhi High Court
Shri Ramu Sharma & Anr. vs Shri R.C. Babbar on 1 March, 2011
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA No. 470/2001
% 1st March, 2011
SHRI RAMU SHARMA & ANR. ...... Appellants
Through: None.
VERSUS
SHRI R.C. BABBAR ...... Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This case is on the Regular Board of this Court since 17.1.2011.
Today it is effective item no. 2 on the Regular Board. It is 12:45 pm but no
one appears for the parties. I have therefore perused the record and am
proceeding to dispose of the appeal.
2. The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal under
Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is to the impugned judgment
and decree dated 17.5.2001 whereby the suit of the appellants for recovery
of Rs.1,42,100/- was dismissed, and which recovery was claimed on the
RFA No. 470/2001 Page 1 of 5
ground that a sum of Rs.70,500/- was advanced to the defendant/respondent
in terms of the receipt/document/agreement dated 25.3.1998. The
respondent/defendant contested the suit on the ground that the document
dated 25.3.1998 was a forged and fabricated document.
3. Since the document dated 25.3.1998 in the present case is a
curious one, I would seek to reproduce the same which reads as under:-
"Received 60,000/- sixty thousand
10,500/- Ten thousand five hundred only
70,500/-Seventy thousand & five
hundred only
"The amount shall be retuned on 25.6.1998."
(sd)
R.C.Babbar
25.3.98."
(The leter portion of the receipt reads as follows):-
"There is a plot in Vipin Garden Colony. If the same
is mutated then Ramu Sharma and Bamshi shall pay their
share of the amount which shall be paid to Chander
Parkash and 70% of the lot land shall be transferred to
their name."
(sd) R.C.Babbar
25.3.98.
(There is an addition to this which reads):-
"If the amount is not paid by 25.6.98 the amount shall be
paid in double."
(sd) R.C.Babbar."
"Witness
Kapil Dev Bakshi
S/o Late R.D.Bakshi
R/o K-1-130 Mohan Garden."
RFA No. 470/2001 Page 2 of 5
4. In view of the strange language of the document, the Trial Court
has rightly arrived at the following findings and conclusions in paras 10 and
11 of the impugned judgment and decree which read as under:-
"10. While analyzing the genuineness of the case of the
plaintiffs, I begin with the premise that it is for the plaintiffs
not only to plead their case but also to prove the same
beyond shadow of doubt. While analyzing the deposition
of PW1 and PW2; I find that they are silent on many
relevant aspects which ought to have been answered and
explained by them such as; who paid the consideration; to
which property the present dealing belonged; what was the
number and extent or specification of the property; who
was the owner of the property; who was Chander Parkash?
It remained to be answered by the plaintiffs as to whether
the alleged amount was paid for mutation purposes or for
some land deal, the plaintiffs are not clear on this aspect.
PW1 and PW2; the plaintiffs have testified that the amount
was advanced to the deft on the understanding that one
plot in Vipin Garden Colony shall be mutated by the deft
and after the mutation, the same shall be transferred to
the plaintiffs. However, it remained to be answered by the
plaintiffs that in regard to which property and for what
consideration the land deal took place. Rather contrary to
this suggestion was put to the deft that he had received
the sum of Rs.70,500/- from them for affecting mutation of
plot in Vipin Garden Colony, Delhi. They have not put any
suggestion that it pertained to any land deal; as is
suggestive in their deposition. Thus, it is not clear from the
own deposition of plaintiffs as to whether the said amount
was advanced for mutation purposes or it pertained to
some land deal. Or was there some land-deal with
Chander Parkash? Because the receipt spells that the
payment shall be made to Chander Parkash. Further there
are two inconsistent terms in the receipt; one is that the
amount shall be returned on 25.6.98; then second is
(addition) that if the amount is not returned on 25.6.98; it
will be paid in double. The second term is apparently
interpolated. The signatures of the witness also seem to
be a added/interpolated on the receipt. There also seem to
be interpolation in the words that „70% of the land shall be
RFA No. 470/2001 Page 3 of 5
transferred to the plaintiffs.‟ These overlap the line of
signature.
These terms run contrary to the suggestion put to the deft
that the alleged amount of Rs.70,500/- was paid to him for
effecting mutation.
10. Further evidently the bare perusal of the receipt
Ex.PW1/3 shows that there were number of material
additions/interpolations/inconsistencies and even signature
at the bottom differed to the signature dt. 25.3.98. Last
but not the least, the practice is that the revenue stamp is
affixed and signatures of the executants are put thereon.
However, in this case on stamp there are no signature of
the deft. Shri R.C.Babbar. Evidently, it lends credence to
the plea of the deft that the receipt was forged and
fabricated.
11. From my above discussion, it is evident that firstly,
there is no mention as to who paid the consideration to the
deft. Even in their deposition, each of the plaintiffs
testifies that he paid the consideration. This is impractical.
Secondly, there are inconsistent terms in the first portion
and second portion of the receipt. Thirdly, there is
apparent addition and interpolation in the terms that if
money is not paid uptil 25.6.98, then the double amount
will be paid. Fourthly, the signatures below this are-
entirel6y different from the signatures on the dates
25.3.98. There is also apparently addition of the words and
70% of the l and shall be transferred to them (plaintiffs).
Lastly, the testimony of the sole witness Shri Kapil Dev
Bakshi does not inspire any confidence and he seems to be
procured and interested witness." (Emphasis added)
5. In view of the language of the document dated 25.3.1998 and its
curious formatting, I do not find any illegality and perversity in the impugned
judgment and decree. The Trial Court has rightly observed that the
document is forged/fabricated because it is silent as to who paid the
consideration to the respondent/defendant, which was the property in
question for which the transaction was entered into, who was the owner of
RFA No. 470/2001 Page 4 of 5
the property for which the transaction was entered into namely Chander
Prakash or someone else, whether the amount was paid for mutation or
certain transaction for immovable property. Further, there are clear-cut
interpolations in the documents as rightly noted by the Trial Court. I may
add that the signature of the witness and the particulars of witness also
seem to have been interpolated later on because it appears in different ink
and different handwriting. The Trial Court has found lack of credibility in
deposition of the plaintiffs and has therefore dismissed the suit.
6. I do not find and illegality or perversity in the impugned
judgment and decree which calls for interference by the Court in the appeal
merely because two views are possible and one view has been taken by the
Trial Court. The appeal being devoid of merits is therefore dismissed,
leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Trial Court record be sent back.
March 01, 2011 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ak
