Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. Now, the first contention which is raised on behalf of the appellants in this appeal is that the appellants had specifically denied the execution of the wake deed and the plaintiffs have failed to examine either the scribe of or any of the attesting witnesses to the wake deed. According to the learned counsel, there is no evidence on record which can be said to prove the signature of deceased Sheikh Mehatab on the wake deed and, therefore, the wake deed was not proceed, with the result that the very basis on which the plaintiffs land a claim to the disputed properties had not been established by them. Now, so far as the execution of the wake deed is concerned, as we have already pointed out above, the trail Court has mainly relied on the evidence of Kazi Rahimuddin (P. W. 3). Having carefully gone through the evidence of Kazi Rahmuddin however, we are not inclined to agree with the view which is taken by the learned Judge of the trial Court that Kazi Rahimuddin was present at the time of the execution the wake deed. The wake deed (Ex. P-29) is no doubt a registered document, but that does not absolve the parties relying on the document from independently proving the execution of the document before any claim can be laid on the basis of that document. It is a document which shows that it was executed on 4-7-1946. It was scribed by one Anand Waman Muley, resident of Warud. The signature of Sheikh Mehatab on the document is in Modi script and the signatures of the two attesting witnesses, Sheikh Bannoo Sheikh Gafoor and Narayan Sakharamji Patil, are also in Modi script. Now, admittedly neither Anand Waman Muley, who was scribe, nor any of the attesting witnesses had been examined on behalf of the plaintiffs. It is true that the wake deed is not by law required to be attested, and the examination of an attesting witness would not be necessary before the document can be said to have been proved. But if neither the scribe nor the executant of the document was available, then the only other witnesses who could have validly proved or deposed to the execution of the document by Skeikh Mehatab would be the attesting witnesses of persons who knew the signature of Sheikh Mehatab, Kazi Rahimuddin is not one of the attesting witnesses, nor was there any thing in the document itself to show that he was present at the time of its execution. Before we refer to the evidence of Kazi Rahimuddim, it is necessary to refer to another document which is on record i.e. the will Ex. P-28 which also is executed by deceased Sheikh Mehatab on 27-11-1944. That document purports to have been signed by Sheikh Mehatab himself and there are six attesting witnesses. Sheikh Bannoo Sheikh Gafoor is a person who has attested both the will dated 27-11-1944 and the wake deed Date 4-7-46. Kazi Rahimuddin is an attesting witness to the will. A reference to one more attesting witness is necessary, that is, Vasant Ramchandra Kukde. The name of Vasant Ramchandra Kukde becomes relevant when we consider the evidence of Kazi Rahimuddin. The execution of the will by deceased Sheikh Mehatab does not in any way affect the plaintiffs' claim if it is otherwise proved though it appears that by this will dated 27-11-1944 Sheikh Mehatab had also dedicated certain properties for religious and charitable purposes, and a part of the property was according to the will, to go to Sheikh Gulab. But a found rightly by the learned Judge, the will has been superseded, and in view of the wake deed the will does not become operative. It is not necessary to refer to the evidence of Kazi Rahimuddin who, as it appears from the judgment of the learned Judge, was assumed to be present at the time when the wake deed was executed. The will dated 27-11-1944 was shown to Kazi Rahimuddun and he deposed that he was present when Sheikh Mehatab signed it. Then he deposes that Sheikh Mehatab executed a wake deed in 1946 and he was present at that time. When the wake deed was shown to him, he stated that Sheikh Mehatab had signed it in his presence and that Sheikh Mehatab was keeping good health when he executed the wake deed. His evidence in cross-examination however, shows that his statement that he was present at the time when Sheikh Mehatab executed the wake deed cannot be accepted as true. When he was asked about the details of the time when the wake deed was written, he expressed his inability to say whether the wake deed was executed in morning or in the evening. He also could not give the names of the other persons who were present on that day and whether those persons were from Shendurjana or some other villages. Shendurjana was the place where Sheikh Mehatab resided and where the document was written. He further says that Vasant Kukde, Gangaram Buraji and Sahnkarrao Mukhlaji were among the persons present when the wake deed was written, and Vasant Kukde wrote the wake deed. According to him, Vasant Kukde was specially called from Warud for writing the document. Now, the document itself shows that Vasant Kukde had not written the document and he was only an attesting witness to the will executed two years earlier. Neither Gangaram Bhuraji nor Sankarrao Mukhlaji nor Vasant Kukde are examined as witnesses. There is no other means of ascertaining whether they were really present. These are the persons who are the attesting witnesses to the will, and in all probability, when the witness was referring to these names, he was obviously referring to these witnesses as those who had signed as attesting witnesses on the will. The witness went to the extent of deposing that he had attested the wake deed. As already pointed out, there were only two attesting witnesses to the wake deed and Kazi Rahimuddin is not one of them. When the witness was deposing to the fact of his having attested the document, it appears to us that he was all the time deposing the will and not to the wake deed because he is a witness to the will. The witness further stated that the wake deed was handed over to the panchas plaintiff after it was written. Mohammad Kasam (P. W. 1) who is examined as P. W. 1 however, does not depose that the wake deed was given to him after it was written. Mohammed Kasam'z statement in examination-in-chief was that the wake deed was given to him two or three days prior to his death by Sheik Mehatab himself. According to the witness, the plaintiffs were called there, but he prevaricated later and said that the wake deed was handed over to the plaintiffs two or three days after its registration. The witness further claims to have gone to Morshi two days after the document was written for the purpose of registration of the wake deed, and the deed was, according to him, registered on the third day. This statement again is not borne out by the endorsement of registration on the document. The document was written on 4-7-1946 and it was registered about 20 days later i.e. on 24-7-1946. When the witness was further cross-examined as to when the wake was executed, he stated that it was executed in the month of April while the wake deed was actually executed in the month of July 1946. All these statements which are made by witness Kazi Rahimuddin clearly show, in our view, that the witness knew nothing about the wake deed nor was he present at the time when it was either executed or registered. Now, the learned Judge, while noticing these discrepancies in the evidence of Kazi Rahimuddin, has tried to explain away the discrepancies by observing that the confusion was very likely when the witness was coming further to say about the execution of two documents in his presence. While making these observations the learned Judge seems to have assumed that the witness was present at the time of the execution of the wake deed when that was the very fact which had to be ascertained after going through his evidence. It is not disputed that no other witness speaks of having seen Sheikh Mehatab sign this document, and if Kazi Rahimuddin's evidence is rejected, there is no other oral evidence on which it could be held that it is proved that the signature of the wake deed (Ex. P-29) is that of Sheikh Mehatab.

5. Miss. De. learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs, however, contends that even on the other two grounds, namely, the comparison of the handwriting and the endorsement made by Sub-Registrar, the finding that the execution has been duly proved can be sustained. Now, it is no doubt true that the learned Judge has tried to compare the signature of the executant on the wake deed with the signature made by him on the will. We are not in a position to ascertain whether the learned Judge who decided the suit was familiar with the Modi script. But that apart, in our view though it is permissible for a Court under Section 73 of the Evidence Act to compare signature, a comparison of handwriting as a mode of proof is very hazardous and inconclusive, specially when it is made by one not conversant with the subject and without such guidance of experts. The Judge should not, therefore, decide the question whether the disputed signature agreed with the other signatures of a certain person merely on his own inspection without the assistance of expert evidence: See also Asmand Ullah Khan v. Shiam Lal AIR 1947 All 411. By such a comparison of signatures, the document cannot be said to have been proved as required by Section 67 of the Evidence Act.