Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. So far as the additional grounds relating to execution of sale deed (Ext. 2) are concerned, Shri Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants contended that as provided under Section 61 of the Evidence Act contents of the documents should be proved either by primary or by secondary evidence. Shri Mishra further submitted that as provided under Section 67 of the Evidence Act proof of signature of the person who is said to have signed the document is mandatory and the original mode of proving the signatures of the executant and the contents of the documents is by way of examining someone who saw the executant signing the document or the scribe writing the document or by examining someone who knows signature/thumb impression of the executant or the scribe writing/drafting the document or by comparing the signature of the executant appearing in the document with that of the admitted signature appearing in some other document. Referring to the aforesaid provisions of the Evidence Act it is contended on behalf of the appellants that none of the above procedure had been followed for proving document (Ext. 2) and in absence of such proof it cannot be said that the sale deed (Ext. 2) was duly executed or proved.

9. First submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the document (Ext. 2) has not been proved in terms of Section 47 of the Indian Evidence Act. According to the learned counsel Sri Mishra signature of the executant and contents of Ext. 2 could only be proved by calling someone to the witness box to show the executant signing the document or the scribe writing the document or person who is acquainted with the signature or thump impression of the executant or the scribe writing/drafting the document or when such witnesses are not available by comparison of signature appearing in the document with that of signature of the executant appearing on any admitted document through expert. Shri Mishra challenges proof of Ext. 2 on the ground that when witnesses were available none was examined to prove the document (Ext. 2) in accordance with law. In this connection, reference may be made to Sections 61, 62, 63 and 67 of the Evidence Act. Section 51 of the Act prescribes that contents of the document may be proved either by preliminary or by secondary evidence. Section 62 defines preliminary evidence, whereas Section 63 defines secondary evidence. Section 67 prescribes that if a document is alleged to be signed or could have been written wholly or in part by a person, signature or hand written of the so much of the document as is alleged to be in that person's handwriting must be proved. At the time of hearing the learned counsel Sri Mishra referred to the evidence of P.W. 1 and submitted that due execution of Ext. 2 has not been proved in accordance with law. Before analysing the evidence in this regard, I feel it necessary to refer to the document itself first. Ext. 2 is the sale deed wherein Amulyanath Mitra is the vendor and the original plaintiff is the vendee. The deed has been executed by Sailendranath Mitra who is not only son of Amulyanath Mitra but also agent and special power-of-attorney holder of Amulyanath Mitra. The endorsement made on the back of the first page of the sale deed shows that the deed had been executed by Sailendranath Mitra as special power-of-attorney holder of Amulyanath Mitra. It also shows that the deed was executed in present of the Registering authority and the execution of the document was admitted by Sailendranath Mitra who was identified by an advocate and it also shows payment of consideration of Rs. 1800/- in presence of the registering authority. P.W. 1 who is the power-of-attorney holder of plaintiff-vendee was examined in Court. She is no other than daughter of the plaintiff and in her evidence she has stated that due to old age her parents are not in a position to come to Court for deposition, for which she as power-of-attorney holder of the plaintiff had come to depose and prove the document (Ext. 2). In para 3 of her evidence she has stated that defendant No. 3 was the general power-of-attorney holder of Amulyanath Mitra who is his father. She has further stated that the defendant No. 3 who is an Advocate presented the sale deed before the Sub-Registrar for registration and Dibya-singh Mishra, Advocate also signed the deed as witness. She has further stated that the entire consideration money of Rs. 1800/- was paid to defendant No. 3 in presence of the Sub-Registrar and on that date Ext. 1 as well as parcha in respect of the suit land were handed over to the plaintiff. In para 4 she has stated that two days after execution of the sale deed (Ext. 2) in presence of witnesses Amulyanath Mitra delivered possession of the land after demarcation by Amin to the plaintiff and in January, 1968 the plaintiff raised compound wall around the suit land. However, referring to the statement of witnesses in cross-examination that she was not present when Amulyanath Mitra put his LTI, it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that actual execution of Ext. 2 has not at all been proved by the plaintiff in terms of Section 47 of the Evidence Act. In order to answer the question raised by the learned counsel for the appellants, evidence of Sailendranath Mitra who executed sale deed as power-of-attorney holder and examined as D.W. 3 on behalf of defendants should be looked into. In the very first paragraph of the examination-in-chief execution of sale deed (Ext. 2) was admitted by him. Though explanation is given that the document was a nominal one to defraud the creditors, execution of the sale deed has not been disputed by the executant himself. Learned counsel for the appellant on the face of such an admission on the part of the executant of Exhibit 2 submitted that the so-called admission made by defendant No. 3 cannot be taken into consideration as an admission. In support of his contention learned counsel relied upon a decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Chironjilal v. Khatoon Bi, reported in AIR 1995 Madhya Pradesh 238. Referring to Section 13 of the Evidence Act the Court observed as follows (at page 241) :