Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

xxx xxx xxx

63. In Sayyapparaju Surayya v. Koduri Kondamma [Sayyapparaju Surayya v. Koduri Kondamma, 1949 SCC OnLine Mad 227], a Division Bench of the Madras High Court, while construing the provisions of Sections 35(1)(a) and (b) of the Registration Act, observed : (SCC OnLine Mad) "The admission required therefore is admission of the execution of the document. ... It is not enough for the person, who is the ostensible executant, to admit his signature on a paper on which, it may be, the document is ultimately engrossed. The identity of the papers on which the signature occurs is not sufficient. If a man says that he signed a blank paper on the representation that it was required for presenting a petition, as in the present case or if a man signs a completed document on the representation that his signature or thumb impression is required as an attesting witness, that admission of the signature or thumb impression in those circumstances cannot be construed to be an admission of the execution of the (2022) 7 SCC 1.

35 IC 56], which was cited with approval in Jogesh Prasad Singh [Jogesh Prasad Singh v. Ramchandar Prasad Singh, 1950 SCC OnLine Pat 31] , held : (Ebadut Ali case, SCC OnLine Pat para 11) "11. ... In our view, execution consists in signing a document written out and read over and understood, and does not consist of merely signing a name upon a blank sheet of paper. To be executed a document must be in existence; where there is no document in existence, there cannot be execution. ... Where an executant clearly says that he signed on blank paper and that the document which he had authorised is not the document which he contemplated, the statement is a denial not an admission, of execution."

73. The "execution" of a document does not stand admitted merely because a person admits to having signed the document. Such an interpretation accounts for circumstances where an individual signs a blank paper and it is later converted into a different document, or when an individual is made to sign a document without fully understanding its contents. Adopting a contrary interpretation would unfairly put the burden upon the person denying execution to challenge the registration before a civil court or a writ court, since registration will have to be allowed once the signature has been admitted.

16. It was then argued that a person will not entrust a signed blank paper to another person without any intention. It is argued that a person signing a blank paper would have agreed that he agrees for all the terms which the plaintiff puts in the document and that it was in token thereof that he has put his signature and hence, the burden should be shifted to the person, who had signed the papers. According to us, the contingency will not shift the burden of proof. We cannot ignore the circumstances under which where a person may be compelled to give signed blank paper to another person. Person who signs the paper may not know what are the conditions, which will be imposed by the other side. Hence, in such circumstances, a general proposition cannot be laid down that the burden should be on the person, who has subscribed his signature to a blank paper. As it was stated in AIR 1931 Pat 219, the fact that the defendant‟s thumb impression appears on the paper is a strong piece of evidence in favour of the plaintiff and in the majority of cases very slight evidence would be necessary to prove that the thumb impression was given on the document after it had been written out and completed. Thus, evidence that has to be adduced by the plaintiff in such case will be less onerous than in cases where there is complete denial of signature and execution. But if the plaintiffs evidence is not sufficient or unreliable that onus cannot be said to be discharged. We may further say that always the burden of proof is on the person, who wants to get relief in the suit. As always stated, onus of proof shifts during the pendency of the litigation depending upon the nature of the evidence given by either side. The plaintiff may give evidence regarding the execution of the document. If the fact of thumb impression or signature is admitted, that will give more reliability to the plaintiffs evidence. If such evidence adduced by the plaintiff is reliable and if the plaintiff is able to discharge his burden sufficiently, then onus will shift on the defendant to show that he had not executed the document. We only say that the plaintiff cannot succeed in the case without giving evidence. Because the defendant had admitted his signature, he had to give some evidence to show that the document has been properly executed. Further things depend upon the evidence adduced and on facts and circumstances of each case. When both sides have adduced evidence, the question of burden of proof vanishes into the air. Hence, we are of the view that the decisions given in (1990) 1 Ker LT 456 : (1990) 2 Ker LJ 115 putting the burden on the defendant have not laid down the correct law. xxx xxx xxx"