Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

28. The plaintiff has suppressed the alleged declaration dated 12.12.2002. Said declaration is produced by defendant No.2 and marked at Ex.D.4. It is the certified

- 24 -

copy of the alleged declaration relating to the oral gift and is issued by ADLR, Belagavi. The said declaration is on a stamp paper dated 12.12.2002 and the stamp paper appears to have been purchased in the name of defendant No.1. However, the recital in the said declaration of gift (as fairly admitted by learned senior counsel appearing for the plaintiff/appellant) would also disclose about the existence of a charge over the property. The records would disclose that the charge was created in the year 2003 after the execution of the alleged gift deed. However, said charge created in 2003, is mentioned in the declaration of gift dated 12.12.2002. Thus, Ex.D.4 casts suspicion about its authenticity. Indeed, Ex.D.4 is not produced by the plaintiff. However, the said document is not disputed when it was tendered in evidence by defendant No.2. Thus, the fact that the declaration of oral gift dated 12.12.2002 in Ex-D4, contains a recital about the charge over the property which was created in 2003, inevitably points to the conclusion that the said document is antedated.