Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1475 (RAJ)

Anil Kumar v. LR’s of late Smt. Rukmani Devi

2012-07-03

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. - In this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-defendants are challenging the validity of order dated 4.5.2012, by which, the trial Court rejected the application of the petitioners filed under Section 65 (A) and (C) of the Evidence Act. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the suit filed by late Rukmani Devi it was alleged that original tenant Hari Shanker sub-let the premises in question to the petitioners but, in fact, the said contention was totally false, therefore, the petitioner being defendant No.4 filed his reply in the civil suit filed by late Rukmani Devi and submitted that rent-deed was executed by the petitioner-defendant in favour of late Rukmani Devi on 5.6.1991 and same was handed over to the plaintiff and his agent. 3. In the reply, it is specifically stated that original document is lying with the plaintiff, therefore, the plaintiff may be directed to produce the original document on record. It is also submitted that Krishna Kumar filed a complaint under Section 163, Cr.P.C. against the petitioner with the allegation that so-called rent-deed was fabricated and prepared by Anil Kumar and no such original deed is lying with him. The complaint filed by the respondent-plaintiff was properly investigated by the Police Station Sujangarh and police gave final report and submitted before the competent Court; and, in that final report, protest petition was filed by respondent-plaintiff Krishna Kumar. That, too, was dismissed. Therefore, it cannot be said that any false rent-deed was produced by petitioner-defendant No. 4. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that although assertion with regard to existence of the original rent-deed was made in the reply filed on 24.8.1993 but photo stat copy was submitted before the Court on 18.2.1997 prior to framing all issues with the prayer that original document is lying with the plaintiff and he is not producing the same before the Court, therefore, photo stat copy of the said document filed in the Court may be accepted as secondary evidence. As per learned counsel for the petitioners the trial Court rejected the application illegally on two grounds, firstly that the photo stat copy was filed after three and a half years and, secondly, upon perusal of the photo stat copy of the rent-deed it emerges that the document is executed for a period of more than one year which is not in consonance with the provisions of Section 107, Transfer of Property Act, therefore, as per Section 107, Transfer of Property Act it is required to be registered; but both these grounds are unfounded. Therefore, the trial Court ought to have accepted the application filed under Section 65(A) and (C) of the Evidence Act for admitting the photo stat copy of the rent-deed as secondary evidence. It is, therefore, prayed that order impugned may be quashed. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that right from the beginning the plaintiff-respondent are raising voice that no such rent-deed was executed by petitioner-defendant in favour of late Rukmani Devi and so-called rent-deed which is said to be executed on 5.6.1991 is forged. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that on the one hand the petitioner-defendant submitted before the Court that original rent-deed is in possession of Krishna Kumar and he has handed over to him; and, on the other hand, upon perusal of the reply Annexure-2 it is revealed that no such fact is on Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff further submitted that for the first time photo-stat copy of the rent-deed was submitted before the Court on 18.2.1997 but no such reply that photo stat copy of the rent-deed is lying with the defendant, therefore, the trial Court has rightly rejected the application filed by the defendant-petitioner because the finding of the criminal Court cannot bind the civil Court. In this view of the matter, no case is made out for interference. Hence, this writ petition may be dismissed. 6. After hearing Learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the order impugned. 7. Admittedly, in the reply filed by the petitioner-defendant in the suit, it is nowhere stated that while handing over the original rent-deed he obtained photo stat copy of the said document and produced before the Court later on. Hence, this writ petition may be dismissed. 6. After hearing Learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the order impugned. 7. Admittedly, in the reply filed by the petitioner-defendant in the suit, it is nowhere stated that while handing over the original rent-deed he obtained photo stat copy of the said document and produced before the Court later on. It is also admitted position of the case that along with reply no such photo stat copy of the rent-deed was filed and for the first time in the year 1997 the said photo stat copy was produced before the Court; and now, application has been filed under Section 65(A) and (C) of the Evidence Act for accepting the said photo stat copy of the rent-deed as secondary evidence. 8. In my opinion, right from filing the suit the plaintiff raised voice that the premises in question has been sub-let. They did not admit the existence of the rent-deed. It is also relevant to mention that it was pleaded by Krishna Kumar that the document is fabricated but it is very strange that on the basis of photo stat copy investigation was made. When right from beginning the plaintiff-respondent is raising voice that the premises is sub-let by the defendant and there is specific pleading then it cannot be said that any document was executed. It appears that on the basis of the photo stat copy the petitioner-defendants want to prove themselves as tenant. However, before that, in the reply filed by the petitioners no such pleading with regard to execution of the rent-deed and handing over the same to the plaintiff is made. In this view of the factual position in the case, the contention of the petitioner-defendant is far from truth that any document was executed by him and handed over to plaintiff Krishna Kumar. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that any error has been committed by the trial Court while rejecting the application filed by the defendant-petitioner under Section 65(A) and (C) of the Evidence Act. For the above reasons, I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned order passed by the trial Court. 9. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed.Writ petition dismissed. *******