Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

44. It may be stated that the Tatima Ex. PW 3/C cannot be looked into and relied upon for holding that the land depicted therein was in fact agreed to be sold. Firstly, Ex. PW 3/C has not been proved in evidence in accordance with law. Nothing has come on the record to show as to who had carried out the demarcation and who had prepared the Tatima Ex. PW 3/C.

45. According to the plaintiffs the demarcation at the spot were carried out by PW 4 Bal Kishan Patwari on 18/19-10-1990 and the Tatima Ex. PW 3/C was prepared by him. PW4 Bal Kishan. however, is silent on this aspect PW 4 has deposed that he had carried out the demarcation at the spot on the asking of the defendant and after such demarcation, had prepared the Tatima Ex. PW 3/B. He does not say that Tatima Ex. PW 3/C was prepared by him after carrying out the demarcations.

46. A bare perusal of the Tatima Ex. PW 2/B shows that the same is shown to have been prepared on 1-9-1990, that is, before the execution of the agreement dated 28-9-1990 Ex. PW 2/A. This Tatima shows the entire land measuring 65 bighas 15 biswas of the defendant. The area agreed to be sold is not depicted therein. Assuming that this Tatima was got prepared by the defendant, as claimed by PW 4, the same might have been got prepared by him only for the purpose of identifying the estate owned by him for the purpose of agreement Ex. PW 2/A.

47. Tatima Ex. PW 3/C is shown to have been prepared on 20-10-1990. As stated above, there is nothing on record to show as to who prepared it. This Tatima is not a public document nor the same is per se admissible in evidence. In order to prove the same in evidence, the person preparing the same was required to be examined. Merely because the same has been marked as an exhibit would not dispense with the proof of the same in accordance with law.

48. In Sait Tarajee Khimchand v. Yamarti Satyam, AIR 1971 SC 1865, the plaintiff therein wanted to rely upon two documents, namely, day book and ledger, which had been marked as Exs. A/12 and A/13, respectively. No evidence was led by the plaintiffs to prove these documents. In the absence of formal proof of these documents, the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not rely on these documents and it was held that mere marking of an exhibit does not dispense with the proof of documents.

49. To the similar effect is the decision of Gauhati High Court in Thagiram Borah v. State of Assam, AIR 1980 Gau 59 and a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Punjab National Bank v. Britannia Industries Ltd., 2002 (3) Civil Law Times 517.

50. In the present case as well in the absence of formal proof of the Tatima Ex. PW 3/C, no reliance can be placed thereon even though it has been marked as an exhibit.

51. Secondly, the Tatima Ex. PW 3/C was never made a part of the agreement Ex. PW 2/A or the addendums Ex. PW 2/C and PW 3/D, nor the parties appear to have intended to make it a part of the agreement and the addendums. The addendum Ex. PW 2/C specifically stipulates :