Plea that executant was illiterate should not be after thought
In judgment reported in AIR 1992 Madhya Pradesh 22 (Ramjan Khan
& Ors. Vs. Baba Raghunath Dass & Ors), it has been held that the burden
was on the person who was relying upon the document to prove that the
same were read and explained to the illiterate person who is said to have
thumb marked it. The ratio of the above-cited judgment does not apply to
the facts of the present case as the plea of Gurmukh Singh being an illiterate
person is not taken in the plaint and is an after thought. It has been simply
stated in the plaint by the appellants that the father of respondent had
obtained signatures of Gurmukh Singh on blank papers by deceitful means.
It has not been explained as to under what circumstances Gurmukh Singh
was made to sign blank papers by father of the respondents. After having
admitted the signatures of Gurmukh Singh on the agreement to sell and the
receipts Ex. DW-1/1 to DW-1/7, appellants cannot be permitted to wriggle
out of the same. Once the signatures of Gurmukh Singh on agreement to sell
Ex. DW-1/1 and receipts Ex. DW-1/1 to DW-1/7 are admitted by the
appellants, the burden of proof that these documents were blank when
Gurmukh Singh had signed, shifts upon the appellants and they have failed
to discharge the burden. No plausible reason is given by the respondent as to
why husband of appellant No. 1 would sign blank documents at the instance
of the father of the respondents who is admittedly in possession of the suit
property since the year 1959. The agreement to sell Ex.DW-1/1 is dated
29.09.59 and father of the respondent is in possession of the suit property
since the year 1959 and irresistible conclusion is that he is in possession of
the suit property in part performance of the agreement to sell and the
evidence of part performance are the receipts Ex. DW-1/2 to DW-1/7 which
are admittedly signed by Gurmukh Singh, husband of appellant No. 1 and these receipts are in token of money received by Gurmukh Singh from father
of respondents for payment of instalments to Rehabilitation Department.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SUBJET : SUIT FOR POSSESSION
Date of Judgment: 21.03.2011
RSA No.21/2003
PRITAM KAUR & ORS. ………..Appellants
Versus
SHRI KRISHAN GOPAL & ANR. ……….Respondents
