Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the judgment of the trial court as well as the first appellate court. The first appellate court has primarily set aside the judgment and the decree of dismissal on the ground that Om Prakash Sharma (defendant No.2) has not entered into the witness box in order to prove his case. I do not feel that Om Prakash was required to enter into the witness box at all. This is on account of the fact that Om Prakash Sharma's case has been established on the basis of the stand taken by NDMC in the pleadings as well as through the testimony of the witness, who has been examined by the NDMC that he is a legal genuine licensee of the shop in question. Two vital documents have been proved by the NDMC in this regard. The first document is 'No objection' having been given by all the legal heirs including Brij Mohan Sharma on 13.9.1973 giving therein no objection to the transfer of the licence in respect of shop No.29 in favour of their eldest brother, namely, Om Prakash Sharma. This document is not admitted by Brij Mohan Sharma. He has denied that he has ever signed any such document. The witness does not seem to be testifying the truth. If at all he had not signed the said document, he at best could have obtained an expert's opinion as to whether his signatures which are appearing on the copy of the plaint or vakalatnama or on any other admitted documents were tallying with the signatures appearing on the questioned document. It is very unlikely that this document of 'no objection' has not been signed by Brij Mohan Sharma. This is on account of the fact that not only Brij Mohan Sharma has signed the said document but it is signed by other remaining legal heirs also. None of the other legal heirs have been impleaded as a party to the suit nor have they been made to appear as a witness to say they did not sign the said document. If that would have been so then perhaps one could have easily and safely said or presumed said that this 'No objection certificate' is a procured document. On the contrary, so far as Brij Mohan Sharma's signatures are concerned, I have compared his signatures appearing on this 'No objection' with his signatures appearing on the plaint and vakalatnama. I find, a comparison from the naked eye, gives an irresistible impression that the signatures appearing on the 'No objection certificate' are that of Brij Mohan Sharma. The reasons for drawing this inference is the formation of the words, the force with which the signatures have been put. It shows some amount of similarity which makes the court to draw this inference. The second document which has been proved by NDMC was the resolution passed by it regularizing the licence in favour of Om Prakash Sharma after he had completed the requisite formalities including filing of 'No objection' by the six legal heirs in favour of Om Prakash Sharma, being the eldest.