That after death the plaintiffs adoptive father for looking after the village properties he began to stay at his native village at Kashinagar and in this absence for companyducting the litigations at the instance of the defendant for authorising him to represent said Ram Moni Devi the defendant took thumb impression of Ram Moni Devi on some blank stamp papers and blank papers with one or two signatures of the plaintiff also thereon.
The same reasonings apply to the agreement in questions.
The defendant thus denied the allegation of the plaintiff that he had trespassed into the suit premises taking advantage of the absence of the original plaintiff Gangadhar Halder.
The Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta by judgment dated 12.01.1996, has set aside the judgment of the city civil companyrt and allowed the appeal of the respondent.
It is also well settled that signatures to the documents having been admitted or proved the companytents thereof automatically go into evidence, when documents were admitted into evidence without objection See Order No.
Considering the facts of the case, I am inclined to observe that the rent receipts produced by the defendant have been manufactured by him on abusing a faith reposed on him by plaintiff Gangadhar holder.
100 according to English Calendar.
A, A l, and A 2.
The main question raised by the appellant before this Court is on the admissibility and evidentiary value of the three rent receipts relying on which the High Court has dismissed the suit.
53 dated 5.9.1982 vide AIR 1972 S.C. 608 P.C. Purushothama Reddiar, Appellant v S. Perumal, Respondent.
2003 Supp 5 SCR 90 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DHARMADHIKARI, J. The suit for recovery of possession of the suit premises on the allegation of taking wrongful and forcible possession by the companytesting respondent was decreed by the city civil companyrt, Calcutta by its judgment dated 29.6.1984.
The relevant portion of the finding of the trial companyrt reads thus The evidence on record, therefore, shows that defendant Biren Jaiswal had access to the rent bill kept by Gangadhar.
Underlining for pointed attention The defendant Birendra Kumar Jaiswal in the written statement made specific reference to the rent receipts issued in his favour by landlady late Ram Moni Devi with thumb impressions on the stamps affixed on them and endorsements of the plaintiff by putting his signatures on the back portion of those rent receipts.
On the above pleadings, the parties went to trial.
The petitioner, being plaintiff in the trial companyrt has, therefore, approached this Court in the present appeal.
As a matter of fact, the defendant was the monthly tenant under Smt.
She also died and the original plaintiff Gangadhar Halder who is proforma number contesting respondent number 2 in this appeal , claims to be her successor in interest as the adopted son.
The suit premises belong to the deceased Foul Chand.
The only ground on which such receipts have been discarded by the learned trial judge is a finding of fraud by companyversion of blank stamp papers into rent receipts through perpetation of fraud in that way was never pleaded in the plaint.
In paragraphs 8 9 of the plaint, anticipating the plea of the defendant, following averments are made That the defendant is a near relation of Anil Kumar Gupta, tenant of the numberthern shop room and was working in the said shop and became friendly with said Ram Moony Devi and the plaintiff and after death of Gokul Chand he voluntered to help per in various pending litigations and administration of the estate left by said Gokul chand and said Ram Moni Devi, and illiterate lady and the plaintiff being practically an illiterate man deposed utmost faith upon the defendant.
Apart from leading oral evidence to prove tenancy, he produced rent receipts marked as Exs.
The evidence on record further shows that defendants utterly failed to prove formally rent receipts dated 18th March, 1972, 2nd Feb., 1974 and 8th May, 1976 and the genuineness of these rent receipts.
The present appellant is transferee of the suit property from the original plaintiff Gangadhar Halder.
5,200 on a pro numbere date 21.7.1971 and after receiving the said amount the said Ram Moni Devi duty put her left thus impression and the said pro note was also signed by the plaintiff a witness.
On his death, it was inherited by his wife Ram Moony Devi.
It is absolutely false that the defendant took thus impression of Ram Moni Devi on some stamp blank paper.
At the time of payment of rent the rent receipts were also endorsed by the plaintiff by putting his name.
An Agreement of tenancy dated 12.12.1970 marked as Ex C was also produced to prove his status as tenant in the suit premises.
The companytesting respondent resisted the suit claiming to be in possession of suit premises as tenant.
53 of the trial companyrt dated 3.9.82.
Ram Moni Devi in respect of two rooms on the ground floor at 76, Amherst street, Calcutta 9 at a monthly rental of Rs.
