Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

156. Hence, even if we presume that Art. A is a duly proved document, this discussion does not entitle the plaintiff to a decree for specific performance. Our findings on other points below also lead us to the same result.

52. As the plaintiff has not filed the suit on the basis of oral agreement or any unregistered agreement but on all agreements together, we find that the judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court reported at 2012 (3) Mah.L.J. 370 Nirav Dipak Modi vs. Najoo Behram delivered at interlocutory stage can not assist the plaintiffs. Admission of their signatures by the defendants on Art. A does results in proving the correctness or truth of its contents is the proposition advanced by citing the judgment delivered by the Hon. Apex Court in Narbada Devi Gupta vs. Birendar Kumar Jaiswal & another - (2003) 8 SCC 745. This ruling shows that their as against plea of tenancy based upon the undisputed signed rent receipts issued by the plaintiff landlord, landlord claimed that he gave a blank signed paper to the defendant to conduct litigation. After specific averment of the tenant, plaint was not amended & no plea of fraud was raised. The document was admitted & given exhibit number. The plaintiff could not explain how the rent receipts having thumb impression & signatures went in custody of tenant. Here the defendants specifically urge that the defendant 6 cooperative housing society is the sister concern of plaintiff, an antedated document was entered into & they did not receive any amount. Defendant no. 6 cooperative housing society could not have paid the advance to the defendants in cash or without accounting for it. Hence, the above ruling can not govern the present controversy. Division Bench of this Court in Imagedas vs. Bajaj Leathers reported at 2011 (4) Mh.L.J. 926, in paragraph 9 found that having encashed the cheque received with undisputed covering letter mentioning the agreement & balance payment towards final consideration, effort to urge the agreement as sham & bogus in written statement & attempt to lead oral evidence on it but inconsistent with the documents, could not have been countenanced. Again the view is reached in peculiar facts which supported the case of that plaintiff.