Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

14. In view of the fact that the defendants raised the plea that this document is an ante dated document and the first defendant has died, this Court has looked into the depositions of the witnesses to see whether this point is proved either in the chief-examination or in the cross-examination of the witnesses. In the entire chief examination of DW.1, there is virtually no statement about the creation of Ex.A.1. He deposed in the chief- examination that the first defendant informed him that he was paid Rs.500/- at the time of obtaining the signature and thumb impression on the stamped paper. He did not depose anything else. DW.2 was examined to prove the sale deed in favour of the first defendant viz., Ex.B.11. DW.2 on the other hand deposed that he was informed by the first defendant that on a ready drafted document produced by Lakshmi Narayana Reddy and 9 DVSS,J others, he put his signature and thumb mark. This is the oral evidence of the defendants.

c) This Court also notices the oral evidence of DW.3 wherein in her chief-examination she deposed that Lakshmi Reddy insisted to execute some documents. The said Lakshmi Reddy and others had a document readily drafted, at last the first defendant put his signature and thumb impression on the said document.

17. The admission in the pleading in the opinion of this Court deserves great importance. No evidence to explain this admission in the pleading is forthcoming. On the contrary DW.3 also supports the same by stating that Lakshmi Reddy came with a prepared document on which the signature and thumb impression were affixed by the first defendant. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the entire submissions on the question of gaps, different inks etc., pale into insignificance. Admittedly, both as per the written statement of the first defendant and as per the deposition of DW.3, a fully prepared document was produced for signature. The document on which the first defendant affixed his signature in the opinion of this Court is an already prepared document.

20. In addition, the evidence of DW.1 or DW.2 is not really important for this point, since they were not present on that day. DW.3 on the other hand clearly talks of a transaction, she allegedly witnessed in the house of the first defendant. She clearly deposed that Lakshmi Reddy and others had a document which is readily drafted and the first defendant signed on the document.

21. Therefore, a reading of the entire oral evidence including the evidence of plaintiffs' witnesses and of the 14 DVSS,J defendants does not lead to inescapable conclusion that Ex.A.1 was created or that the first defendant affixed his signature under the mistaken belief that the land in Survey No.69 was being sold. The sequence of the events, the oral evidence and the admission in the written statement that a readily drafted document was signed leads to a conclusion that Ex.A.1 was in fact executed as stated and not as urged by the defendants. The cross- examination of PWs.2 and 3 does not in any way take away the intrinsic worth of Ex.A.1.