Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

11. The next question is, whether these documents are genuine. The learned Subordinate Judge has come to the conclusion that they are suspicious and that they ought not to be relied upon. I will deal with all the grounds urged by the learned Subordinate Judge for holding that they are suspicious documents. I will first deal with Exhibit 3 which is the earlier document. The learned Subordinate Judge says that the document is not a registered one, but it must be remembered that it was executed on the 22nd November 1851 when it was not obligatory on the parties to register their documents. The document bears a stamp of 1851 and the endorsement of the stamp-vendor is as fallows: "Sold this stamp to Saiyid Asrat Ali, Pleader of the Court, for writing a deed of sale at Rs. 4." It would be difficult for the plaintiff to procure a stamp of 1851, and the document as a whole has the appearance of being a very old document. It would be plainly impossible for us to hold that a document must necessarily be a suspicious document because it does not happen to be a registered document. To take such a view would be to hold that a document of 1851 should have been registered although the law did not require those documents to be registered. The argument is a speculative one and I cannot attach any value to it. The next ground urged by the learned Subordinate Judge is that it is not shown why Asrat Ali should have sold this property to Nawabbunnissa and others. It is somewhat unreasonable to cad upon the plaintiff in 1916 for proof as to the necessity of a transaction which took place in 1851. It is then urged by the learned Subordinate Judge that the signature of Asrat Ali in Exhibit 3 does not taily with his signature in Exhibit 4 which is accepted by him as a genuine document. I have myself examined the two signatures and I am not prepared to base my conclusion as to the genuineness of the document on my personal observation of the signatures. It is always unsafe to hold that a document is a forgery on the personal inspection of the document by the Court. No expert witnesses were examined on the point and no witnesses were called by the defendants to prove that the signature purporting to be the signature of Asrat Ali in Exhibit 3 was not in fact the signature of Asrat Ali.

12. The last ground urged by the learned Subordinate Judge is that Exhibit 3 bears the seal of Asrat Ali showing "with what care, solicitude and precaution this document has been got about." The procedure adopted by the learned Subordinate Judge was as follows: he looked at Exhibit 1, which, according to him, is genuine and he found that it did not bear the seal of the executant. He then looked at Exhibit 3 and found that it did bear the seal of the executant; and the conclusion at which he arrived is that if a genuine document does not bear the seal of the executant, a document which does bear the seal of the executant must be a suspicious document. I am not prepared to subscribe to the mode of reasoning adopted by the learned Subordinate Judge. In regard to Exhibit 2 the first point which the Subordinate Judge makes is that it is not a registered document. I have already dealt with that argument and it is only necessary to add that to take the view which the learned Subordinate judge has taken is to say that a document is compulsorily registrable although the law did not require that it should be registered. The learned Subordinate Judge then examined the stamp-paper and he thought that there was something suspicious and that the endorsement of the stamp-vendor showed that it was sold by him to one Raghu Jha for the purpose of a tamassock. I may say that the stamp on Exhibit 2 is of the year 1856 and it is difficult to imagine how the plaintiff could procure a stamp of 1856. As to the argument of the learned Subordinate Judge, it is enough, to say that Bibi Nawabunnissa, the executant of Exhibit 2, was a purdanashin lady and it was plainly impossible for her to walk up to the stamp-vendor and to pursues the stamp. She had to employ somebody to purchase the stamp for her and that person night as likely have been Raghu Jha as some body else. The learned Subordinate Judge, upon the evidence of D.W. No. 12, has come to the conclusion that Raghu Jha was a client of Imam Ali, the father of Enayet Ali, plaintiff's husband, and upon this he has built the theory that "it is nothing unusual that an old unused stamp-paper in the name of the aforesaid Raghu Jha remained in the Sherista of Enayet Ali and his father and has been utilised by the former for the present purpose." The argument is a speculative one and I am not prepared to assent to it. It is impossible at this date to have the evidence as to who Raghu Jha was and what connection there was between Raghu Jha and Nawabunnissa, the executant of Exhibit 2. As I have said before, Nawabunnissa was a purdanashin lady of rank and position and it was necessary for her to employ an agent to procure the stamp. It is suggested that she might have bought the stamp through her husband Asrat Ali. Asrat Ali himself was a Vakil of standing and position and if one could indulge in speculation, one might say that probably Asrat Ali employed Raghu Jha to procure the stamp for his wife. I do not, however, rest my decision on any conjectures The document appears to be a genuine document and it is difficult to imagine how the plaintiff could possibly have procured the stamp which was undoubtedly sold to Raghu Jha on the 5th July 856. The last argument of the learned Subordinate Judge is as follows: "Nawabunnissa got the major portion of the properties only in 1851 and it has not been explained why with such precipitancy she executed this deed in favour of her minor daughter." I quite agree that there is no explanation why Nawabunnissa executed this document in favour of her children but, in my opinion, the argument is a speculative one. It is quite unreasonable to expect the plaintiff to give any evidence on this point.