Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

29. Mr.N.Manoharan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1, 4 & 6 has relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Thiruvengadam Pillai vs. Navaneethammal and Another reported in (2008) 4 SCC 530. The relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment is extracted hereunder:

14. If a person wants to create a backdated https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis agreement, the first hurdle he faces is the non-availability of stamp paper of such old date. Therefore, tampering of the date of issue and seal affixed by the stamp vendor, as also the entries made by the stamp vendor, are quite common in a forged document. When the agreement is dated 5-1-1980, and the stamp papers used are purchased in the years 1973 and 1978, one of the possible inferences is that the plaintiff not being able to secure an antedated stamp paper for creating the agreement (bearing a date prior to the date of sale in favour of the second defendant), made use of some old stamp papers that were available with him, to fabricate the document. The fact that very old stamp papers of different dates have been used, may certainly be a circumstance that can be used as a piece of evidence to cast doubt on the authenticity of the agreement. But that cannot be a clinching evidence. There is also a possibility that a layman unfamiliar with legal provisions relating to stamps, may bona fide think that he could use the old unused stamp papers lying with him for preparation of the document and accordingly use the old stamp papers.