Delhi District Court
Ram Babu Singh vs Pawan Singh on 22 May, 2025
IN THE COURT OF AASHISH GUPTA, DISTRICT JUDGE-01, NORTH-EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI In the matter of RCA DJ 22/24 CNR No: DLNE010025182024 Sh. Ram Babu Singh S/o Sh. Sawat Singh R/o H.No. J-131 Main Road, 4th Pusta, Kartar Nagar, Delhi - 110053 .....Appellant/plaintiff versus Sh. Pawan Singh S/o Sh. Badan Singh R/o D-3/E, Gali No. 2, Vijay Colony, Jagjit Nagar, Delhi - 110053 ......Respondent/defendant Date of institution : 02.09.2024 Reserved on : 09.05.2025 Date of decision : 22.05.2025 RCA DJ 22/24 Ram Babu Singh Vs. Pawan Singh Page No. 1/23 JUDGMENT
1. Plaintiff is in first appeal against judgment and decree dated 26.07.2024 passed in Civ Suit No. 606/19 ('impugned judgment and decree').
2. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred to by the nomenclature used before the Ld. Trial Court. Thus, appellant shall be referred as 'plaintiff ' and respondent as 'defendant' in the body of this judgment.
3. In the suit in question, plaintiff had inter-alia sought eviction of defendant, arrears of rent, damages and various injunctions. The suit was dismissed and hence, this appeal.
Plaintiff 's case
4. Plaintiff claims ownership of suit property vide notarized agreement to sell, Will, possession letter etc all dated 27.03.2019 and a registered GPA dated 30.03.2019 , he purchased an undivided share to the extent of 12.5 sq yards in property falling in Khasra No. 808, bearing No. D-3/A, Village Ghonda, Gujran Khadar, Bhim Gali, Vijay Colony, Jagjeet Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi - 110053 (' suit property'). It may be noted that the aforesaid entire RCA DJ 22/24 Ram Babu Singh Vs. Pawan Singh Page No. 2/23 property (which will include the suit property) shall be referred as 'property in question' in the body of this judgment.
5. On the same day i.e. 27.03.2019, plaintiff claims that at the request of defendant, he inducted him as tenant in that very property for a period of 6 months. The monthly rent is stated to have been agreed at Rs. 4000/- per month.
6. Plaintiff claims that when defendant did not pay the rent or vacate the property, he sued him by way of the suit in question.
Defendant's case
7. Defendant resisted the suit on the ground that he never sold the suit property to the plaintiff and claimed that his signatures on the documents relied upon by the plaintiff [Ex. PW1/B (OSR) to Ex. PW1/H (OSR)] including the rent agreement were taken from him under an intoxicated stated and he did not know the implication of the said documents. It is his specific case that he is drug addict and it was plaintiff who used to supply him various intoxicants like charas , ganja etc. He specifically claims that plaintiff supplied him the said intoxicants and obtained his signatures in such state.
RCA DJ 22/24 Ram Babu Singh Vs. Pawan Singh Page No. 3/238. He further claims that on 29.03.2019 also, heavy amount of intoxicating substance was provided by plaintiff to defendant and defendant consumed the same on the night of 29.03.2019. Thereafter, on 30.03.2019, defendant was forcibly taken to the office of Sub-Registrar-IV, Seelampur for execution of the GPA Ex. PW1/H and he was made to execute the same by brow beating him. As per him, he was also made to sign some other papers on the same day.
9. Thus, it is his specific case that he never sold his share in the property in question and continues to have an undivided share therein. Thus, as per him, he is not a tenant of the plaintiff and therefore, there is no question he being evicted or be liable to pay any arrears of rent etc. The Trial Court's view
10. The Ld. Trial Court, vide the impugned judgment has believed the testimony of defendant and also relied upon his medical evidence Ex. DW3/B (colly) to hold that as per record defendant was habitual of taking drugs and alcohol to the extent that he had to undergo de-addiction treatment from hospital. The Ld. Trial Court found that the documents of ownership (Ex. PW1/C to Ex. PW1/H) RCA DJ 22/24 Ram Babu Singh Vs. Pawan Singh Page No. 4/23 and the rent agreement (Ex. PW1/B) were not executed in good faith and there was undue influence exercised by the plaintiff on defendant in the execution of the said documents.
11. The Ld. Trial Court has further found various contradictions in the testimony of plaintiff and thus, held that there is a substantial doubt about the title of the plaintiff to the suit property and also about the genuineness of the documents relied upon by the plaintiff to show his title and also to show his landlord-tenant relationship with defendant.
12. On the aforesaid grounds, the suit was eventually dismissed.
Plaintiff 's contention in appeal.
13. Plaintiff is in appeal and argued that the Ld. Trial Court has failed to consider the fact that the documents Ex. PW1/B to Ex. PW1/H were executed by the defendant himself and once defendant admits to the signatures/thumb impressions on the said documents, he, in law, cannot wriggle out of the same.
14. Additionally, it was argued that as per defendant's own claim, purportedly plaintiff gave intoxicating material to RCA DJ 22/24 Ram Babu Singh Vs. Pawan Singh Page No. 5/23 defendant on 29.03.2019. But, the title documents of the property were executed on 27.03.2019. Now, if the above is true, on the date of execution of title documents and the rent agreement i.e. 27.03.2019, as per defendant's own claim, there was no intoxicant administered to defendant on said date and therefore, it cannot be said that the execution of title documents/rent agreement was under the influence of any intoxicant. This, as per Counsel for defendant is a material irregularity in the judgment passed by the Ld. Trial Court and therefore, the same should be set aside.
15. Defendant has reiterated his case before this Court and prayed for dismissal of appeal.
Analysis and finding.
16. I have gone through the entire trial court record as well the grounds of appeal.
17. I have also considered the arguments of the parties.
18. In my humble opinion, there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment and decree. I am in complete agreement with the reasoning given by the Ld. Trial Court. The relevant portion of the impugned judgment is reproduced hereinafter as the same correctly appreciates RCA DJ 22/24 Ram Babu Singh Vs. Pawan Singh Page No. 6/23 the entire evidence of the parties with which I am in complete agreement. Thus, instead of reiterating the same evidence, for easy reference, relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced.
22. It is a settled principle of law that the burden of proof that the contract, the transaction of which appears on the face of it or on evidence adduced seems to be unconscionable is upon a person who is in a position to dominate the will of the other. Also, as per section 111 of The Indian Evidence Act, the burden of proof regarding good faith in a transaction between the parties is upon the person who stands to the other in a position of active confidence.
23. In the case in hand, the plaintiff is obviously in a position to dominate the will of the defendant when it has been concluded that defendant is habitual of taking drugs and alcohol. Defendant has prima facie proved that he is addicted to drugs and alcohol. The statement of plaintiff in his cross-examination that he did not remember if he gave any money to the defendant on 26.03.2019 for taking intoxicating substances leads the court to draw an inference that plaintiff used to give money to the defendant for taking intoxicating substances. In the considered opinion of this court and in view of the above discussion, it appears that defendant is habitual of taking drugs and alcohol so much so that he had to undergo de-addiction / treatment from hospital. Plaintiff has not led even an iota of evidence to discharge his burden of proof that the transaction was carried out in good faith and there was no undue influence exercised by the plaintiff on the defendant.
24. That in his cross-examination, plaintiff deposed that defendant and the other family members of the defendant approached him regarding the sale of the suit property in the month of December, 2019, however, to the contrary the sale transaction had allegedly taken place in the month of March, 2019. In his cross-examination, plaintiff deposed that he purchased the share of the defendant for Rs. 4 lacs and remaining share for a sum of Rs. 16,00,000/-. In the RCA DJ 22/24 Ram Babu Singh Vs. Pawan Singh Page No. 7/23 same cross- examination, the plaintiff has also deposed that he paid a total sale consideration of Rs. 16,00,000/- to the defendant as well as his other family members. These contradictions cannot be termed as mere improvements and the said contradictions are material in nature so much so that they go to the root of the story of the plaintiff. There is no explanation of difference of Rs. 4 lacs in the total sale consideration as alleged by the plaintiff to be Rs. 20 lacs i.e. Rs. 4 lacs to the defendant for his share and remaining Rs. 16 lacs to the other family members for their share and the admitted actual payment made of Rs. 16 lacs. The contradiction regarding the payment creates doubt on the fact whether any sale consideration was actually paid to the defendant or not.
25. That the plaintiff neither examined any of the witnesses to the execution of the alleged sale documents nor he has proved the payment of Rs. 4 lacs as sale consideration by any cogent evidence apart from relying upon the documents i.e. rent agreement, agreement to sell, receipt, affidavit, possession letter, Will deed and GPA etc. the genuineness of which is itself doubtful.
26. That it is an undisputed fact that defendant has six sisters and there is nothing on record whatsoever to show that defendant had the right to sell 12.5 square yards out of total of 50 Square Yards of the suit property when both the father and the mother of the defendant died intestate and there were seven legal heirs upon whom the suit property devolved in equal shares.
27. That the plaintiff has relied upon GPA dt. 31.05.2019 executed in favour of plaintiff by Smt. Rekha (sister of the defendant) for property measuring 43.5 square yards out of the suit property. Plaintiff has alleged the suit property to be of 50 square yards in the plaint as well as his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/1. However, the total property allegedly purchased by him from the defendant i.e. 12.5 square yards and from sister of the defendant i.e. 43.5 square yards comes out to be 56 square yards which does not matches with the alleged area of the property, which further creates doubt on the whole transaction.
28. That it is an admitted fact that defendant was the owner / co-sharer in the suit property and was in possession RCA DJ 22/24 Ram Babu Singh Vs. Pawan Singh Page No. 8/23 of the same. It is also an admitted fact that the defendant is still in possession of the suit property. From the facts as alleged in the plaint and from the defence as taken by the defendant, the present case appears to be a fit case where defendant has raised substantial doubt and disputed the title of the plaintiff.
29. That the onus of proof for proving issues no. 1 to 6 was upon the plaintiff, which he has miserably failed to discharge. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, issues no. 1 to 6 are decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.
19. Apart from the aforesaid reasons, I propose to supply other reasons recorded hereinafter which are in addition to the reasons given by the Ld. Trial Court. If one considers the same, there was no other conclusion which could be reached in the present case, except to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff.
20. I may note that defendant appeared in the witness box as DW-1 and claimed in his affidavit in evidence Ex. DW1/A that plaintiff used to supply various intoxicating substances like charas, ganja and liquor to defendant for a very long time with the intention to grab and usurp his property (see para 8 of his affidavit in evidence).
21. He further claims in his evidence that his mother died on 22.03.2019 and even at that time, intoxicating material was being provided to him by plaintiff (see para 10 of his affidavit in evidence).
RCA DJ 22/24 Ram Babu Singh Vs. Pawan Singh Page No. 9/2322. He again claims that in the evening of 29.03.2019 also, intoxicating materials were provided to him by the plaintiff and thereafter, defendant consumed the said material in the night of 29.03.2019. Subsequently, on 30.03.2019, when he was under the high influence of such intoxicants, he was forcibly taken to the office of Sub-Registrar-IV and was brow beaten and coaxed by plaintiff to sign GPA (Ex. PW1/H(OSR). Defendant has further claimed that on the same date, he was made to sign some other papers which are not known to him (see para 11 and 12 of the affidavit in evidence of defendant).
23. It is pertinent to note that the entire evidence of defendant qua the aforesaid facts has been allowed to go unrebutted and unchallenged by the plaintiff during the cross-examination of defendant. Defendant has not been asked a single question to dispute the aforesaid facts. Not even a single suggestion has been given to the defendants during his cross-examination at all. Thus, once the aforesaid facts have been allowed to go unrebutted and unchallenged by the plaintiff, it would mean that defendant has been able to show that he was being provided intoxicating material by plaintiff himself with the intention to grab defendant's share in the property in question. Again, the aforesaid testimony would mean that even on 30.03.2019, defendant was forcibly taken to the office of Sub-Registrar concerned and while he was RCA DJ 22/24 Ram Babu Singh Vs. Pawan Singh Page No. 10/23 under the influence of drugs, he was made to sign GPA EX. PW1/H.
24. It was argued on behalf of plaintiff that even if plaintiff purportedly gave intoxicating material to defendant on 29.03.2019, this would not bring in question the documents executed on 27.03.2019.
25. It is pertinent to note that as per plaintiff's own case, he became owner of an undivided share in the property in question to the extent of 12.5 sq yards on the basis of documents like agreement to sell, Will etc. Ex. PW1/C to Ex. PW1/G dated 27.03.2019 read with the GPA dated 27.03.2019 (but registered on 30.03.2019) Ex. PW1/H. Thus, as per plaintiff's own case, at least one of the title documents relied upon by the plaintiff i.e. GPA Ex. PW1/H was got registered by him on 30.03.2019. The said document, as per the unrebutted testimony of defendant, was got executed by the plaintiff under the influence of drugs and at the same time defendant was also made to sign some other papers.
26. Thus, firstly, with the unrebutted testimony of defendant, as noted above, one of the title documents i.e. GPA Ex. PW1/H has come within the circle of suspicion and it was for the plaintiff to now show that the said document was duly explained to the defendant and that the same was never executed by him under influence of any intoxicant. No evidence in this regard has been led by the RCA DJ 22/24 Ram Babu Singh Vs. Pawan Singh Page No. 11/23 plaintiff and therefore the GPA Ex. PW1/H is essentially a doubtful document hit by Section 16 of Indian Contract Act 1872.
27. Again, if the title of the plaintiff is dependent on the chain of documents which includes Ex. PW1/H/GPA and the said GPA itself was executed and registered on 30.03.2019, plaintiff did not have complete title of the property till 30.03.2019. This is presuming that the said set of documents can actually give him title. Now if plaintiff did not have title of the property till 30.03.2019, how could he induct the defendant as a tenant in the property on 27.03.2019 itself? This again makes the entire transaction suspicious and unconscionable.
28. Further still, defendant has disputed the fact that he signed the other title documents Ex. PW1/C to Ex. PW1/G and has also disputed the rent agreement Ex. PW1/B. As per the unrebutted testimony of defendant, he was made to sign some papers on 30.03.2019. Plaintiff has not led any evidence to rebut this fact and has not produced any witness to prove that the said documents i.e. Ex. PW1/C to Ex. PW1/G and the rent agreement Ex. PW1/B were actually executed on 27.03.2019 and not on 30.03.2019. If one reads the evidence of defendant, defendant claims that he was being supplied drugs by plaintiff much prior in time and even at the time of death of the mother of defendant on 22.03.2019, drugs were supplied by plaintiff. This essentially means that defendant is setting up a case that even on and around RCA DJ 22/24 Ram Babu Singh Vs. Pawan Singh Page No. 12/23 27.03.2019/30.03.2019 plaintiff was supplying drugs to defendant with the intention to grab defendant's share in property in question.
29. Now, with plaintiff leading no evidence to show that the aforesaid documents were actually executed on 27.03.2019, there is a possibility that the documents Ex. PW1/C to Ex. PW1/G and rent agreement Ex. PW1/B were essentially executed on 30.03.2019 and were actually predated by the plaintiff. There is a possibility that the papers got signed from defendant on 30.03.2019 (as claimed in his unrebutted testimony contained in para 12 of his affidavit in evidence Ex. DW1/A) were the same papers on which the aforesaid documents were prepared. This again raises a doubt upon the authenticity of the entire chain of documents relied upon by the plaintiff. Plaintiff is the sole witness who appeared in the witness box and he never produced any of the attesting witnesses or the Notary Public to prove the fact that the documents in question were actually executed between the parties against any valid consideration or with they actually intending to enter the said transaction in the manner claimed in the said documents.
30. It can be argued that once defendant admits to signing the aforesaid papers, any oral evidence to the contrary cannot be led by the defendant in light of Section 91/92 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. But, the said argument, even if raised, would be liable to be rejected as, the defendant herein has specifically challenged the RCA DJ 22/24 Ram Babu Singh Vs. Pawan Singh Page No. 13/23 execution of documents in question by claiming that they were got signed by him by exerting undue influence. Once the defendant has proved on record that he was made to sign papers under force and by giving him intoxicating materials, the said documents are essentially shown to be hit by Section 16 of Indian Contract Act, 1872.
31. This would make the title documents i.e. Ex. PW1/C to Ex.
PW1/H (presuming that they can give title to the plaintiff) and the rent agreement Ex. PW1/B voidable at the option of defendant Under Section 19 of Indian Contract Act 1872. Defendant has led sufficient evidence to show that he never gave free consent with respect to the said documents and thus, he can avoid the same.
32. As far as the argument qua admissibility of oral evidence of defendant, in light of Section 91/92 of Indian Evidence Act 1872 is concerned, I am not inclined to accept the said argument. The bar of section 91/92 Indian Evidence Act shall not apply to the facts of this case. Before coming to the reasons of the said conclusion, I may fruitfully rely upon a couple of judgments on the said issue which shall be a complete answer to the said contention.
33. In Gangabai vs Chhabubai AIR 1982 SUPREME COURT 20, 1982 (1) SCC 4, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India was dealing with a case wherein the appellant was relying upon a sale deed; while the respondent was contending that the said document was RCA DJ 22/24 Ram Babu Singh Vs. Pawan Singh Page No. 14/23 never an actual sale and in fact, she had taken a loan from appellant with an understanding that she should execute a nominal document of sale with the rent note. In the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India was presented with the argument that u/s 92(1) of Indian Evidence Act, the respondent therein was restrained from contending that there was no sale and no oral evidence to the contrary should be admitted in evidence. While answering the said contention, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
"The next contention on behalf of the appellant is that sub-s.(1) of s. 92 of the Evidence Act bars the respondent from contending that there was no sale and, it is submitted, the respondent should not have been permitted to lead parole evidence in support of the contention. Section 91 of the Evidence Act provides that when the terms of contract, or of a grant, or of any other disposition of property, have been reduced to the form of a document, and in all cases in which any matter is required by law to be reduced to the form of a document, no evidence shall be given in proof of the terms of such contract, grant or other disposition of property, or of such matter, except the document itself. Sub-s. (1) of s. 92 declares that when the terms of any contract, grant or other disposition of property, or any matter required by law to be reduced to the form of a document, have been proved according to the last section, no evidence of any oral agreement or statement shall be admitted, as between the parties to any such instrument or their representatives in interest, for the purpose of contradicting, varying, adding to, or subtracting from, its terms And the first proviso to s. 92 says that any fact may be proved which would invalidate any document, or which would entitle any person to any decree or order relating thereto; such as fraud, intimidation, illegality, want of due execution, want of capacity in any contradicting party, want or failure of consideration, or mistake in fact or law. It is clear to us that the bar imposed by sub-s. (1) of s. 92 applies only when a party seeks to rely upon the document embodying the terms of the transaction. In that event, the law declares that the nature and intent of the transaction must be gathered from the terms of the document itself and no evidence of any oral agreement or statement can be admitted as between the parties to such document for the purpose of contradicting or modifying its terms. The sub- section is not attracted when the case of a party is that the transaction recorded in the document was never intended to be acted upon at all between the parties and that the RCA DJ 22/24 Ram Babu Singh Vs. Pawan Singh Page No. 15/23 document is a sham. Such a question arises when the party asserts that there was a different transaction altogether and what is recorded in the document was intended to be of no consequence whatever. For that purpose oral evidence is admissible to show that the document executed was never intended to operate as an agreement but that some other agreement altogether not recorded in the document, was entered into between the parties (Tyagaraja Mudaliyar and another v. Vedathanni AIR 1936 PC 70, 1936 All LJ 136) . The Trial Court was right in permitting the respondent to lead parole evidence in support of her plea that the sale deed dated January 7, 1953 was a sham document and never intended to be acted upon. It is not disputed that if the parole evidence is admissible, the finding of the court below in favour of the respondent must be accepted. The second contention on behalf of the appellant must also fail."
(emphasis supplied)
34. In the aforesaid judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India placed reliance on the judgment of Tyagaraja Mudaliyar vs Vedathanni (1936) 38 BOMLR 373. The said judgment further elaborates upon the admissibility of parol evidence admissible u/s 92 of Indian Evidence Act. In the said judgment passed by the Ld. Privy Council, was called upon to decide the question as to whether under the provisions of Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, oral evidence was inadmissible to establish that it had been agreed that the provisions for the plaintiff's maintenance were not to be acted on, as the document was only intended to create evidence of the undivided status of the family. It was a case where one of the parties was trying to give oral evidence to show that the written agreement between the parties was no agreement in reality and therefore, there was no contract between them. While dealing with the said issue, the Ld. Privy Council noted section 91 and 92 of Indian Evidence Act and laid as under:
RCA DJ 22/24 Ram Babu Singh Vs. Pawan Singh Page No. 16/23"10. The two relevant sections are as follows, the exceptions and explanations in Section 91 being omitted as having no bearing on the question :
91. When the terms of a contract, or of a grant, or of any other disposition of property, have been reduced to the form of a document, and in all cases in which any matter is required by law to be reduced to the form of a document, no evidence shall be given in proof of the terms of such contract, grant or other disposition of property, or of such matter, except the document itself, or secondary evidence of its contents in cases in which secondary evidence is admissible under the provisions hereinbefore contained.
92. When the terms of any such contract, grant or other disposition of property, or any matter required by law to be reduced to the form of a document, have been proved according to the last section, no evidence of any oral agreement or statement shall be admitted, as between the parties to any such instrument or their representatives in interest, for the purpose of contradicting, varying, adding to, or subtracting from, its terms:
Proviso (1).-Any fact may be proved which would invalidate any document, or which would entitle any person to any decree or order relating thereto; such as fraud, intimidation, illegality, want of due execution, want of capacity in any contracting party, want of failure of consideration, or mistake in fact or law, Proviso (2),-The existence of any separate oral agreement as to any matter on which a document is silent, and which is not inconsistent with its terms, may be proved. In considering whether or not this proviso applies, the Court shall have regard to the degree of formality of the document.
Proviso (3).-The existence of any separate oral agreement, constituting a condition precedent to the attaching of any obligation under any such contract, grant or disposition of property, may be proved.
Proviso (4).-The existence of any distinct subsequent oral agreement to rescind or modify any such contract, grant or disposition of property, may be proved, except in cases in which such contract, grant or disposition of property is by law required to be in writing, or has been registered according to the law in force for the time being as to the registration of documents.RCA DJ 22/24 Ram Babu Singh Vs. Pawan Singh Page No. 17/23
Proviso (5).-Any usage or custom by which incidents not expressly mentioned in any contract are usually annexed to contracts of that description, may be proved :
Provided that the annexing of such incident would not be repugnant to, or inconsistent with, the express terms of the contract. Proviso (6).--Any fact may be proved which shows in what manner the language of a document is related to existing facts. Xxxxxxxx
12. When a contract has been reduced to the form of a document, Section 91 excludes oral evidence of the terms of the document by requiring those terms to be proved by the document itself unless otherwise expressly provided in the Act, and Section 92 excludes oral evidence for the purpose of contradicting, varying, adding to, or subtracting from such terms. Section 92 only excludes oral evidence to vary the terms of the written contract, and has no reference to the question whether the parties had agreed to contract on the terms set forth in the document. The objection must therefore be based on Section 91 which only excludes oral evidence as to the terms of a written contract. Clearly under that section a defendant sued, as in the present case, upon a written contract purporting to be signed by him could not be precluded in disproof of such agreement from giving oral evidence that his signature was a forgery. In their Lordships' opinion oral evidence in disproof of the agreement ( 1) that, as in Pym v. Campbell (1856) 6 E. & B. 370, the signed document was not to operate as an agreement until a specified condition was fulfilled, or (2) that as in the present case, the document was never intended to operate as an agreement but was brought into existence solely for the purpose of creating evidence of some other matter stands exactly on the same footing as evidence that the defendant's signature was forged.
13. In Pym v. Campbell the defendants were sued upon a written contract to purchase an invention, and Lord Campbell had ruled at the trial that on the plea denying the agreement oral evidence was admissible that it had been agreed between the parties before they signed that there was to be no agreement until the invention was approved by A. In his judgment discharging the rule nisi for a new trial, Lord Campbell said (p. 375) :
It was proved in the most satisfactory manner that before the paper was signed it was explained to the plaintiff that the defendants did not intend the paper to be an agreement till A had been consulted, and found to approve of the invention; and that the paper was signed before he was seen only because it was not convenient for the RCA DJ 22/24 Ram Babu Singh Vs. Pawan Singh Page No. 18/23 defendants to remain. The plaintiff assented to this, and received the writing on those terms. That being proved, there was no agreement. Erie, J., who gave judgment first had dealt more fully with this question (p. 373) :
The point made is that this is a written agreement, absolute on the face of it, and that evidence was admitted to shew it was conditional : and if that had been so it would have been wrong. But I am of opinion that the evidence shewed that in fact there was never any agreement at all. The production of a paper purporting to be an agreement by a party, with his signature attached, affords a strong presumption that it is his written agreement; and, if in fact he did sign the paper animo contrahendi, the terms contained in it are conclusive, and cannot be varied by parol evidence : . . . but, if it be proved that in fact the paper was signed with the express intention that it should not be an agreement, the other party cannot fix it as an agreement upon those so signing. The distinction in point of law is that evidence to vary the terms of an agreement in writing is not admissible, but evidence to shew that there is not an agreement at all is admissible.
14. The Indian legislature has thought well to give statutory effect decision in Pym V. Campbell in proviso 3 to Section 92 :-" The existence of any separate oral agreement constituting a condition precedent to the attaching of any obligation under any such contract. . . may be proved "; and in Mottayappan v. Palani Goundan (1913) I.L.R. 38 Mad. 226, Benson and Sundara Ayyar JJ.
have expressed the opinion that oral evidence to show that a document was never intended to operate according to its terms, 'but was brought into existence, as in the present case, solely for the purpose of creating evidence about some other matter is admissible under proviso 1 to Section 92, " any fact may be proved which would invalidate any document". This may well be so, but in their Lordships' opinion, even if there were no provisos to either section, the result in the present case would be the same, because there is nothing in either section to exclude oral evidence that there was no agreement between the parties and therefore no contract." (emphasis supplied)
35. A bare perusal of the aforesaid decisions would show that in cases where there is a written agreement between the parties, the oral evidence to vary the terms of a contract is barred to be received in RCA DJ 22/24 Ram Babu Singh Vs. Pawan Singh Page No. 19/23 evidence u/s 92 of Indian Evidence Act. But, the said principle of law is not applicable where parole evidence is sought to be led to show that there is no agreement at all. Similarly, Section 92 Proviso I specifically allows parole evidence to show that the contract in question is hit by any of the ground which would invalidate the document itself; which is exactly the case being set up in this case.
36. Now, in the present case, even if it is taken that a rent agreement was executed between plaintiff and defendant on 27.03.2019, still, defendant, in law, can lead oral evidence to show that the said agreement is not an agreement at all and he was made to sign the said agreement or the other papers qua title under the influence of intoxicant supplied by plaintiff. If the said evidence is admitted and it is taken that defendant signed the documents relied upon by the plaintiff under the influence of intoxicant supplied by plaintiff, it would mean that when defendant signed the said documents, his mental capacity was affected and thus, he was in such a position where his will could be dominated by other person/plaintiff. This would make the documents relied upon by the plaintiff as documents got executed under undue influence and thus, voidable at the instance of defendant. As already noted, defendant has been successful to prove this fact on record and therefore, he has proved on record that it is more probable that he never sold his RCA DJ 22/24 Ram Babu Singh Vs. Pawan Singh Page No. 20/23 share in suit property to plaintiff or entered therein on the same day as a tenant.
37. The matter can be looked at from another angle. Admittedly, mother of defendant died on 22.03.2019. Soon thereafter, on 27.03.2019, plaintiff claims that defendant agreed to sell his undivided share to plaintiff. It appears extremely suspicious that when defendant was grieving his mother, he would soon thereafter agree to sell undivided share in the property to plaintiff and then agree to become a tenant in the same property for a period of 6 months. Why could, defendant, if he actually wanted to sell the property, wait for sometime before selling it to plaintiff. This again is highly suspicious. In normal circumstances, a person who is grieving the death of his mother, will wait for a few days before selling the property if at all he wants to sell it. In this case, defendant appears to have been under the grip of the plaintiff on account of the fact that plaintiff used to supply him drugs and had also lent money to him.
38. Again, as correctly noted by the Ld. Trial Court, plaintiff, in his cross-examination admits that defendant was never explained the contents or the nature of the documents in dispute in vernacular. This would mean that even otherwise, defendant never signed the documents in question by understanding the nature of the same. Admittedly, as per plaintiff's own version (as contained in his cross-examination) plaintiff used to lend money to defendant's RCA DJ 22/24 Ram Babu Singh Vs. Pawan Singh Page No. 21/23 mother as well as the defendant. This again gives credence to the defendant's claim that plaintiff was in a position to influence his judgment when the disputed documents were purportedly signed by him.
39. Even the medical history proved on record Ex. DW3/B (wrongly given exhibit No. DW1/3/B on the document) would show that prior to the time of execution of the disputed documents and thereafter, defendant was being treated for drug addiction and this further gives credence to his case.
40. If I consider the entire evidence on record, in my humble opinion, the Ld. Trial Court has correctly appreciated the evidence on record. Thus, for reasons noted by the Ld. Trial Court and also for reasons noted above, plaintiff has miserably failed to prove that he had any genuine transaction of sale with the defendant on 27.03.2019; or he is the owner of undivided share in the property in question; or he had a landlord-tenant relationship with the defendant. Thus, the Ld. Trial Court has rightly dismissed the suit. Thus, the impugned judgment and decree are upheld.
41. Accordingly, the present appeal fails. It is dismissed.
42. Parties to bear their own costs.
43. Let a decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
RCA DJ 22/24 Ram Babu Singh Vs. Pawan Singh Page No. 22/2344. Copy of this judgment alongwith decree sheet be sent to the Ld. Trial Court for necessary information. TCR be sent back. Digitally signed by AASHISH GUPTA AASHISH Date:
GUPTA 2025.05.22
16:24:29
Announced in the Aashish Gupta
+0530
open Court on 22.05.2025 District Judge-01, North-East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
RCA DJ 22/24 Ram Babu Singh Vs. Pawan Singh Page No. 23/23