Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"94. In my view, it will be an error on the part of this Court to understand and interpret the decision of the Supreme Court in Rosammal (supra) the way the Trial Court has understood. In Rosammal (supra), there was evidence on record to show that the gift deed was brought into existence fraudulently, as on the date of the execution, the donor was confined to bed due to paralysis. While the donor was confined to bed due to paralysis, the gift deed came to be executed, and that too, by forging the signature of the donor after influencing the Sub Registrar. In such circumstances, it was proved or rather established as regards the fraudulent gift deed. In such circumstances, the Supreme Court held that once there is a denial by the plaintiff as regards the genuineness of the gift deed, then the proviso to Section 68 of the Evidence Act will not be attracted, and the main part of Section 68 of the Evidence Act would put an obligation on the party tendering the gift deed to atleast examine one attesting witness. In my view, the decision of Rosammal (supra) has something to do with the term "specific denial", as contained in the proviso to Section 68 of the Evidence Act. Rosammal (supra) should not be understood or interpreted as laying down as a principles of law or a proposition of law that once the plaintiff denies the execution of a document, then even if the plaintiff has not been able to establish or prove fraud or forgery, the entire onus would shift on the defendant to prove and establish the genuineness of the C/AO/70/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/06/2022 document.