{"id":11386,"date":"2008-02-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-02-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thiruvengada-pillai-vs-navaneethammal-anr-on-19-february-2008"},"modified":"2016-10-29T09:10:13","modified_gmt":"2016-10-29T03:40:13","slug":"thiruvengada-pillai-vs-navaneethammal-anr-on-19-february-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thiruvengada-pillai-vs-navaneethammal-anr-on-19-february-2008","title":{"rendered":"Thiruvengada Pillai vs Navaneethammal & Anr on 19 February, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Thiruvengada Pillai vs Navaneethammal & Anr on 19 February, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: R V Raveendran<\/div>\n
Bench: R. V. Raveendran, P.Sathasivam<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nWrit Petition (civil)  290 of 2001\n\nPETITIONER:\nThiruvengada Pillai\n\nRESPONDENT:\nNavaneethammal & Anr.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 19\/02\/2008\n\nBENCH:\nR. V. Raveendran & P.Sathasivam\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
R. V. RAVEENDRAN, J.\n<\/p>\n
\tThis appeal by special leave is by the plaintiff in a suit for specific
\nperformance – OS No.290\/1980 on the file of District Munsiff, Tindivanam.\n<\/p>\n
Pleadings<\/p>\n
2.\tIn the plaint, the plaintiff (appellant) alleged that the first defendant
\n(Adilakshmi) agreed to sell the suit schedule property to him under an
\nagreement of sale dated 5.1.1980 for a consideration of Rs.3,000\/-, and
\nreceived Rs.2,000\/- as advance. She agreed to execute a sale deed by
\nreceiving the balance consideration of Rs.1,000\/- within three months.
\nPossession of the suit property was delivered to him, under the said
\nagreement. He issued a notice dated 14.2.1980 calling upon the first
\ndefendant to receive the balance price and execute the sale deed. The first
\ndefendant sent a reply denying the agreement. To avoid performing the
\nagreement of sale, the first defendant executed a nominal sale deed in regard
\nto the suit property in favour of the second defendant (first respondent
\nherein), who was her close relative. The said sale was neither valid nor
\nbinding on him. On the said averments, he sought specific performance of
\nthe agreement of sale, against the defendant, alleging that he was ready and
\nwilling to perform his part of the contract.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tThe defendants denied the allegation that the first defendant had
\nexecuted an agreement of sale dated 5.1.1980 in favour of the plaintiff or
\nthat she had delivered possession of the suit property to him. They
\ncontended that plaintiff had concocted and forged the document with the
\nhelp of his henchmen to defraud the defendants. They claimed that the first
\ndefendant had executed a valid sale deed dated 11.2.1980 in favour of the
\nsecond defendant and had delivered possession of the suit property to her;
\nand that the second defendant had put up a hut in the schedule property and
\nwas actually residing therein. The second defendant raised an additional
\ncontention that she was a bona fide purchaser for value and therefore, the
\nsale in her favour was valid.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tDuring the pendency of the suit first defendant died, and the third
\ndefendant (second respondent herein) was impleaded as her legal
\nrepresentative, who adopted the written statement of the second defendant.\n<\/p>\n
Issues and the Judgment <\/p>\n
5.\tOn the said pleadings, three issues were framed by the trial court : (i)
\nwhether the agreement put forth by the plaintiff was true or concocted ? (ii)
\nwhether the second defendant had purchased the suit property for valid
\nconsideration ? and (iii) whether the plaintiff was entitled to the relief of
\nspecific performance ? The plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and the
\nscribe of the agreement (Ramaswami Pillai) as PW-2 and an attesting
\nwitness to the sale agreement (Venkatesha Pillai) as PW-3. The agreement
\nof sale was exhibited as Ex. A-1. The notice and reply were marked as Ex.
\nA2 and A4. The second defendant, (purchaser of the site), gave evidence as
\nDW-1 and the third defendant, who was also a witness to the sale deed dated
\n11.2.1980,  was examined as DW-2. The sale deed dated 11.2.1980 executed
\nby first defendant in favour of second defendant was marked as Ex.B2 and
\nprevious title deed was exhibited as Ex. B4. The plaintiff and his witnesses
\ngave evidence that the sale agreement was duly executed by first defendant
\nin favour of plaintiff. The defendants gave evidence about the sale in favour
\nof second defendant and denied execution of any agreement of sale in favour
\nof plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tThe trial court after appreciating the evidence, dismissed the suit  by
\njudgment and decree dated 28.2.1984. It held that the agreement of sale put
\nforth by plaintiff was false and must have been created after the sale on
\n11.2.1980 in favour of second defendant, by using some old stamp papers in
\nhis possession. The said finding was based on the following facts and
\ncircumstances :\n<\/p>\n
(a) \tThe sale agreement (A-1) was not executed on currently purchased
\nstamp paper, but was written on two stamp papers, one purchased on
\n25.8.1973 in the name of Thiruvengadam and another  purchased on
\n7.8.1978 in the name of Thiruvengadam Pillai.\n<\/p>\n
(b)\tThe two attestors to the agreement were close relatives of plaintiff.
\nOne of them was Kannan, brother of the plaintiff and he was not
\nexamined. The other was Venkatesa Pillai, uncle of plaintiff examined as
\nPW3. The scribe (PW-2) was a caste-man of plaintiff. Their evidence was
\nnot trustworthy.\n<\/p>\n
(c) \tThough the agreement of sale recited that the possession of the suit
\nproperty was delivered to plaintiff, no such possession was delivered. On
\nthe other hand, the second defendant was put in possession on execution
\nof the sale deed and she put up a thatched hut in the schedule property and
\nwas in actual physical possession. This falsified the agreement.\n<\/p>\n
(d)\tIf really there was an agreement of sale, in the normal course, the
\nplaintiff would have obtained the title deeds from the first defendant. But
\nthe earlier title deeds were not delivered to him. On the other hand, they
\nwere delivered to the second defendant who produced them as Ex.B3 and
\nEx.B4.\n<\/p>\n
(e) \tIn spite of defendants denying the agreement (Ex.A1), the
\nplaintiff failed to discharge his onus to prove that execution of the
\nagreement as he did not seek reference to a fingerprint expert to establish
\nthat the thumb impression on the agreement was that of the first defendant.\n<\/p>\n
The first & second appeals<\/p>\n
6.\tFeeling aggrieved, the plaintiff filed an appeal before the Sub-Court,
\nTindivanam. The first appellate court allowed the plaintiff’s appeal by
\njudgment dated 12.1.1987, held that the agreement of sale was proved and
\ndecreed the suit granting specific performance. The following reasons were
\ngiven by the first appellant court in support of its finding :\n<\/p>\n
(a)\tThe evidence of PW1 (plaintiff), the scribe (PW2) and the attestor
\n(PW3) proved the due execution of the agreement by the first defendant. As
\nthe scribe (PW2) was not related to plaintiff and as PW3 was not a close
\nrelative of plaintiff, their evidence could not have been rejected.\n<\/p>\n
(b) \tThe burden of proving that the agreement of sale was concocted and
\nforged was on the defendants and they ought to have taken steps to have the
\ndocument examined by a Finger Print expert, to establish that the disputed
\nthumb mark in the agreement of sale (Ex.A1), was different from the
\nadmitted thumb mark of the first defendant in the sale deed (Ex.B2). They
\nfailed to do so.\n<\/p>\n
(c)\tThere appeared to be no marked difference between the finger
\nimpression in the agreement of sale (Ex.A1) and the finger impression in the
\nsale deed in favour of the second defendant (Ex.B2), on a perusal of the said
\ntwo documents. Therefore, it could be inferred that first defendant had
\nexecuted the agreement.\n<\/p>\n
(d) \tExecution of the agreement of sale on two stamp papers purchased on
\ndifferent dates, did not invalidate the agreement.\n<\/p>\n
8.\tBeing aggrieved, the second defendant filed a second appeal. The
\nHigh Court allowed the second appeal and dismissed the suit, by judgment
\ndated 17.2.1999. The High Court while restoring the decision of the trial
\ncourt held that the agreement of sale was not genuine for the following
\nreasons:\n<\/p>\n
(i)\tThe first appellate court had placed the onus wrongly on the
\ndefendants to prove the negative. As the first defendant denied execution of
\nthe agreement, the burden of establishing the execution of document, was on
\nthe plaintiff. The plaintiff had failed to establish by acceptable evidence that
\nEx. A-1 was a true and valid agreement of sale. The evidence, examined as a
\nwhole, threw considerable doubt as to whether it was truly and validly
\nexecuted.\n<\/p>\n
(ii)\tA perusal of the agreement (Ex.A1) showed that the thumb
\nimpression was very pale and not clear. The first appellate court could not,
\nby a casual comparison of the disputed thumb impression in the agreement
\nwith the admitted thumb impression in the sale deed, record a finding that
\nthere were no marked differences in the thumb impressions in the two
\ndocuments (Ex.A1 and Ex.B2). In the absence of an expert’s opinion that the
\nthumb impression on the agreement of the sale was that of the first
\ndefendant, the first appellate court ought not to have concluded that the
\nagreement of sale was executed by the first defendant.\n<\/p>\n
(iii)\tIn the normal course, an agreement would be executed on stamp
\npapers purchased immediately prior to the execution of the agreement. The
\nfact that the agreement was written on two stamp papers bearing the dates
\n25.8.1973 and 7.8.1978 purchased in two different names showed that it was
\nnot genuine, but was anti-dated and forged.\n<\/p>\n
(iv)\tThe attesting witnesses to the agreement of sale were close relatives
\nof plaintiff. Their evidence was not trustworthy.\n<\/p>\n
Points for consideration<\/p>\n
8.\tThe said judgment of the High Court is challenged in this appeal by
\nspecial leave. The appellant contended that having regard to the provisions
\nof Evidence Act, 1872, there was nothing improper in the first appellate
\ncourt comparing the disputed thumb impression in Ex. A-1 with the admitted
\nthumb impression of first defendant in Ex. B-2; and the finding of the first
\nappellate court on such comparison, that there were no marked differences
\nbetween the two thumb impressions, being a finding of fact, was not open to
\ninterference in second appeal. It was next contended that the execution of the
\nagreement of sale was duly proved by the evidence of plaintiff (PW1), the
\nscribe (PW-2) and one of the attesting witnesses (PW3). It was pointed out
\nthere was no evidence to rebut the evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW3
\nregarding due execution as first defendant died without giving evidence, and
\nas the defendants did not seek reference to a finger print expert to prove that
\nthe thumb impression on the agreement of sale was not that of first
\ndefendant. It was submitted that an agreement cannot be doubted or
\ninvalidated merely on account of the fact that the two stamp papers used for
\nthe agreement were purchased on different dates. The Appellant therefore
\nsubmitted that the sale agreement was duly proved.\n<\/p>\n
9.\tOn the contentions urged, the following questions arise for
\nconsideration :\n<\/p>\n
(i)\tWhether the agreement of sale executed on two stamp papers
\npurchased on different dates and more than six months prior to date of
\nexecution is not valid?\n<\/p>\n
(ii)\tWhether the first appellate court was justified in comparing the
\ndisputed thumb impression with the admitted thumb impression and
\nrecording a finding about the authenticity of the thumb impression, without
\nthe benefit of any opinion of an expert?\n<\/p>\n
(iii)\tWhether the High Court erred in reversing the judgment of the first
\nappellate court in second appeal?\n<\/p>\n
Re : Question (i) <\/p>\n
11.\tThe Trial Court and the High Court have doubted the genuineness of
\nthe agreement dated 5.1.1980 because it was written on two stamp papers
\npurchased on 25.8.1973 and 7.8.1978. The learned counsel for first
\nrespondent submitted that apart from raising a doubt about the authenticity
\nof the document, the use of such old stamp papers invalidated the agreement
\nitself for two reasons. Firstly, it was illegal to use stamp papers purchased on
\ndifferent dates for execution of a document. Secondly, as the stamp papers
\nused in the agreement of sale were more than six months old, they were not
\nvalid stamp papers and consequently, the agreement prepared on such
\n‘expired’ papers was also not valid. We will deal with the second contention
\nfirst. The Indian Stamp Act, 1899 nowhere prescribes any expiry date for
\nuse of a stamp paper. Section 54 merely provides that a person possessing a
\nstamp paper for which he has no immediate use (which is not spoiled or
\nrendered unfit or useless), can seek refund of the value thereof by
\nsurrendering such stamp paper to the Collector provided it was purchased
\nwithin the period of six months next preceding the date on which it was so
\nsurrendered. The stipulation of the period of six months prescribed in section
\n54 is only for the purpose of seeking refund of the value of the unused stamp
\npaper, and not for use of the stamp paper. Section 54 does not require the
\nperson who has purchased a stamp paper, to use it within six months.
\nTherefore, there is no impediment for a stamp paper purchased more than six
\nmonths prior to the proposed date of execution, being used for a document.\n<\/p>\n
12.\tThe Stamp Rules in many States provide that when a person wants to
\npurchase stamp papers of a specified value and a single stamp paper of such
\nvalue is not available, the stamp vendor can supply appropriate number of
\nstamp papers required to make up the specified value; and that when more
\nthan one stamp paper is issued in regard to a single transaction, the stamp
\nvendor is required to give consecutive numbers. In some States, the rules
\nfurther require an endorsement by the stamp vendor on the stamp paper
\ncertifying that a single sheet of required value was not available and
\ntherefore more than one sheet (specifying the number of sheets) have been
\nissued to make up the requisite stamp value. But the Indian Stamp Rules,
\n1925 applicable to Tamil Nadu, do not contain any provision that the stamp
\npapers of required value should be purchased together from the same vendor
\nwith consecutive serial numbers. The Rules merely provide that where two
\nor more sheets of paper on which stamps are engraved or embossed are used
\nto make up the amount of duty chargeable in respect of any instrument, a
\nportion of such instrument shall be written on each sheet so used. No other
\nRule was brought to our notice which required use of consecutively
\nnumbered stamp papers in the State of Tamil Nadu. The Stamp Act is a
\nfiscal enactment intended to secure revenue for the State. In the absence of
\nany Rule requiring consecutively numbered stamp papers purchased on the
\nsame day, being used for an instrument which is not intended to be
\nregistered, a document cannot be termed as invalid merely because it is
\nwritten on two stamp papers purchased by the same person on different
\ndates. Even assuming that use of such stamp papers is an irregularity, the
\ncourt can only deem the document to be not properly stamped, but cannot,
\nonly on that ground, hold the document to be invalid.  Even if an agreement
\nis not executed on requisite stamp paper, it is admissible in evidence on
\npayment of duty and penalty under section 35 or 37 of the Indian Stamp Act,
\n1899. If an agreement executed on a plain paper could be admitted in
\nevidence by paying duty and penalty, there is no reason why an agreement
\nexecuted on two stamp papers, even assuming that they were defective,
\ncannot be accepted on payment of duty and penalty. But admissibility of a
\ndocument into evidence and proof of genuineness of such document are
\ndifferent issues.\n<\/p>\n
13.\tIf a person wants to create or a back-dated agreement, the first hurdle
\nhe faces is the non-availability of stamp paper of such old date. Therefore
\ntampering of the date of issue and seal affixed by the stamp vendor, as also
\nthe entries made by the stamp vendor, are quite common in a forged
\ndocument. When the agreement is dated 5.1.1980, and the stamp papers used
\nare purchased in the years 1973 and 1978, one of the possible inferences is
\nthat the plaintiff not being able to secure an anti-dated stamp paper for
\ncreating the agreement (bearing a date prior to the date of sale in favour of
\nsecond defendant), made use of some old stamp papers that were available
\nwith him, to fabricate the document. The fact that very old stamp papers of
\ndifferent dates have been used, may certainly be a circumstance that can be
\nused as a piece of evidence to cast doubt on the authenticity of the
\nagreement. But that cannot be a clinching evidence. There is also a
\npossibility that a lay man unfamiliar with legal provisions relating to stamps,
\nmay bona fide think that he could use the old unused stamp papers lying
\nwith him for preparation of the document and accordingly use the old stamp
\npapers.\n<\/p>\n
Re : Point No.(ii)<\/p>\n
14.\tSection 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 relates to ‘opinion of
\nexperts’. It provides inter alia that when the court has to form an opinion as
\nto identity of handwriting or finger impressions, the opinion upon that point
\nof persons specially skilled in questions as to identity or handwriting or
\nfinger impressions are relevant facts. Section 73 provides that in order to
\nascertain whether a finger impression is that of the person by whom it
\npurports to have been made, any finger impression admitted to have been
\nmade by that person, may be compared with the one which is to be proved.
\nThese provisions have been the subject matter of several decisions of this
\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n
14.1)\tIn The State (Delhi Administration) v. Pali Ram<\/a> [1979 (2) SCC 158]
\nthis Court held that a court does not exceed its power under section 73 if it
\ncompares the disputed writing with the admitted writing of the party so as to
\nreach its own conclusion. But this Court cautioned :\n<\/p>\n
“Although there is no legal bar to the Judge using his own eyes to compare
\nthe disputed writing with the admitted writing, even without the aid of the
\nevidence of any handwriting expert, the Judge should, as a matter of
\nprudence and caution, hesitate to base his finding with regard to the
\nidentity of a handwriting which forms the sheet-anchor of the prosecution
\ncase against a person accused of an offence, solely on comparison made
\nby himself. It is therefore, not advisable that a Judge should take upon
\nhimself the task of comparing the admitted writing with the disputed one
\nto find out whether the two agree with each other; and the prudent course
\nis to obtain the opinion and assistance of an expert.”\n<\/p>\n
The caution was reiterated in O. Bharathan vs. K. Sudhakaran<\/a>  1996 (2)
\nSCC 704. Again in Ajit Savant Majagvai v. State of Karnataka<\/a> [1997 (7)
\nSCC 110] referring to section 73 of the Evidence Act, this Court held :
\n“The section does not specify by whom the comparison shall be made.
\nHowever, looking to the other provisions of the Act, it is clear that such
\ncomparison may either be made by a handwriting expert under Section 45
\nor by anyone familiar with the handwriting of the person concerned as
\nprovided by Section 47 or by the Court itself.\n<\/p>\n
As a matter of extreme caution and judicial sobriety, the Court should not
\nnormally take upon itself the responsibility of comparing the disputed
\nsignature with that of the admitted signature or handwriting and in the
\nevent of the slightest doubt, leave the matter to the wisdom of experts. But
\nthis does not mean that the Court has not the power to compare the dispute
\nsignature with the admitted signature as this power is clearly available
\nunder Section 73 of the Act.”\n<\/p>\n
14.2)\tIn Murari Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh – 1980 (1) SCC 704, this
\nCourt indicated the circumstances in which the Court may itself compare
\ndisputed and admitted writings, thus :\n<\/p>\n
“The argument that the court should not venture to compare writings itself,
\nas it would thereby assume to itself the role of an expert is entirely without
\nforce. Section 73 of the Evidence Act expressly enables the court to
\ncompare disputed writings with admitted or proved writings to ascertain
\nwhether a writing is that of the person by whom it purports to have been
\nwritten. If it is hazardous to do so, as sometimes said, we are afraid it is
\none of the hazards to which judge and litigant must expose themselves
\nwhenever it becomes necessary. There may be cases where both sides call
\nexperts and the voices of science are heard. There may be cases where
\nneither side calls an expert, being ill able to afford him. In all such cases, it
\nbecomes the plain duty of the court to compare the writings and come to
\nits own conclusions. The duty cannot be avoided by recourse to the
\nstatement that the court is no expert. Where there are expert opinions, they
\nwill aid the court. Where there is none, the court will have to seek
\nguidance from some authoritative textbook and the court’s own experience
\nand knowledge. But discharge it must, its plain duty, with or without
\nexpert, with or without other evidence.”\n<\/p>\n
The decision in Murari Lal (supra) was followed in Lalit Popli v. Canara
\nBank & Ors.<\/a> [2003 (3) SCC 583].\n<\/p>\n
15.\tWhile there is no doubt that court can compare the disputed
\nhandwriting\/signature\/finger impression with the admitted handwriting\/
\nsignature\/finger impression, such comparison by court without the assistance
\nof any expert, has always been considered to be hazardous and risky. When
\nit is said that there is no bar to a court to compare the disputed finger
\nimpression with the admitted finger impression, it goes without saying that it
\ncan record an opinion or finding on such comparison, only after an analysis
\nof the characteristics  of the admitted finger impression and after verifying
\nwhether the same characteristics are found in the disputed finger impression.
\nThe comparison of the two thumb impressions cannot be casual or by a mere
\nglance. Further, a finding in the judgment that there appeared to be no
\nmarked differences between the admitted thumb impression and disputed
\nthumb impression, without anything more, cannot be accepted as a valid
\nfinding that the disputed signature is of the person who has put the admitted
\nthumb impression. Where the Court finds that the disputed finger impression
\nand admitted thumb impression are clear and where the court is in a position
\nto identify the characteristics of finger prints, the court may record a finding
\non comparison, even in the absence of an expert’s opinion. But where the
\ndisputed thumb impression is smudgy, vague or very light, the court should
\nnot hazard a guess by a casual perusal. The decision in Muralilal (supra) and
\nLalit Popli (supra) should not be construed as laying a proposition that the
\ncourt is bound to compare the disputed and admitted finger impressions and
\nrecord a finding thereon, irrespective of the condition of the disputed finger
\nimpression. When there is a positive denial by the person who is said to have
\naffixed his finger impression and where the finger impression in the disputed
\ndocument is vague or smudgy or not clear, making it difficult for
\ncomparison, the court should hesitate to venture a decision based on its own
\ncomparison of the disputed and admitted finger impressions. Further even in
\ncases where the court is constrained to take up such comparison, it should
\nmake a thorough study, if necessary with the assistance of counsel, to
\nascertain the characteristics, similarities and dissimilarities. Necessarily, the
\njudgment should contain the reasons for any conclusion based on
\ncomparison of the thumb impression, if it chooses to record a finding
\nthereon. The court should avoid reaching conclusions based on a mere
\ncasual or routine glance or perusal.\n<\/p>\n
16.\tIn this case the first defendant had denied having put her finger
\nimpression on Ex. A-1. She died during the pendency of the suit before her
\nturn came for giving evidence. The High Court having examined the
\ndocument has clearly recorded the finding that the thumb mark in Ex. A-1
\nwas pale (that is light) and not clear. The document though dated 1980, was
\nexecuted on two stamp papers which were purchased in 1973 and 1978.
\nContrary to the recital in the agreement that possession had been delivered to
\nthe plaintiff, the possession was not in fact delivered to plaintiff, but
\ncontinued with the first defendant and she delivered the possession to the
\nsecond defendant. The title deeds were not delivered to plaintiff. The
\nattesting witnesses were close relatives of plaintiff and one of them was not
\nexamined. The scribe’s evidence was unsatisfactory. It was also difficult to
\nbelieve that the first defendant, an illiterate old woman from a village, would
\nenter into an agreement of sale on 5.1.1980 with plaintiff, and even when he
\nis ready to complete the sale, sell the property to someone else hardly a
\nmonth thereafter, on 11.2.1980. In this background, the finding by the first
\nappellant court, recorded without the benefit of any expert opinion, merely
\non a casual perusal, that there appeared to be no marked differences between
\nthe two thumb impressions, and therefore Ex. A-1 (sale agreement) must
\nhave been executed by first defendant, was unsound. The High Court was
\njustified in interfering with the finding of the first appellate court that the
\nEx.A1 was executed by first defendant.\n<\/p>\n
Re : Point No.(iii)<\/p>\n
17.\tThe trial court had analyzed the evidence properly and had dismissed
\nthe suit by giving cogent reasons. The first appellate court reversed it by
\nwrongly placing onus on the defendants. Its observation that when the
\nexecution of an unregistered document put forth by the plaintiff was denied
\nby the defendants, it was for the defendants to establish that the document
\nwas forged or concocted, is not sound proposition. The first appellate court
\nproceeded on the basis that it is for the party who asserts something to prove
\nthat thing; and as the defendants alleged that the agreement was forged, it
\nwas for them to prove it. But the first appellate court lost sight of the fact
\nthat the party who propounds the document will have to prove it. In this case
\nplaintiffs came to court alleging that the first defendant had executed an
\nagreement of sale in favour. The first defendant having denied it, the burden
\nwas on the plaintiff to prove that the first defendant had executed the
\nagreement and not on the first defendant to prove the negative. The issues
\nalso placed the burden on the plaintiff to prove the document to be true. No
\ndoubt, the plaintiff attempted to discharge his burden by examining himself
\nas also scribe and one of the attesting witnesses. But the various
\ncircumstances enumerated by the trial court and High Court referred to
\nearlier, when taken together, rightly create a doubt about the genuineness of
\nthe agreement and dislodge the effect of the evidence of  PW 1 to 3. We are
\ntherefore of the view that the decision of the High Court, reversing the
\ndecision of the first appellate court, does not call for interference.\n<\/p>\n
18.\tWe, therefore, find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly
\ndismissed. Parties to bear their respective costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Thiruvengada Pillai vs Navaneethammal & Anr on 19 February, 2008 Author: R V Raveendran Bench: R. V. Raveendran, P.Sathasivam CASE NO.: Writ Petition (civil) 290 of 2001 PETITIONER: Thiruvengada Pillai RESPONDENT: Navaneethammal & Anr. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19\/02\/2008 BENCH: R. V. Raveendran & P.Sathasivam JUDGMENT: J U D G M E […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-11386","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nThiruvengada Pillai vs Navaneethammal & Anr on 19 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thiruvengada-pillai-vs-navaneethammal-anr-on-19-february-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Thiruvengada Pillai vs Navaneethammal & Anr on 19 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thiruvengada-pillai-vs-navaneethammal-anr-on-19-february-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-02-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-10-29T03:40:13+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"22 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thiruvengada-pillai-vs-navaneethammal-anr-on-19-february-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thiruvengada-pillai-vs-navaneethammal-anr-on-19-february-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Thiruvengada Pillai vs Navaneethammal & Anr on 19 February, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-02-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-29T03:40:13+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thiruvengada-pillai-vs-navaneethammal-anr-on-19-february-2008\"},\"wordCount\":4400,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thiruvengada-pillai-vs-navaneethammal-anr-on-19-february-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thiruvengada-pillai-vs-navaneethammal-anr-on-19-february-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thiruvengada-pillai-vs-navaneethammal-anr-on-19-february-2008\",\"name\":\"Thiruvengada Pillai vs Navaneethammal & Anr on 19 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-02-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-29T03:40:13+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thiruvengada-pillai-vs-navaneethammal-anr-on-19-february-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thiruvengada-pillai-vs-navaneethammal-anr-on-19-february-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thiruvengada-pillai-vs-navaneethammal-anr-on-19-february-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Thiruvengada Pillai vs Navaneethammal & Anr on 19 February, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Thiruvengada Pillai vs Navaneethammal & Anr on 19 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thiruvengada-pillai-vs-navaneethammal-anr-on-19-february-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Thiruvengada Pillai vs Navaneethammal & Anr on 19 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thiruvengada-pillai-vs-navaneethammal-anr-on-19-february-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-02-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-10-29T03:40:13+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"22 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thiruvengada-pillai-vs-navaneethammal-anr-on-19-february-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thiruvengada-pillai-vs-navaneethammal-anr-on-19-february-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Thiruvengada Pillai vs Navaneethammal & Anr on 19 February, 2008","datePublished":"2008-02-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-29T03:40:13+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thiruvengada-pillai-vs-navaneethammal-anr-on-19-february-2008"},"wordCount":4400,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thiruvengada-pillai-vs-navaneethammal-anr-on-19-february-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thiruvengada-pillai-vs-navaneethammal-anr-on-19-february-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thiruvengada-pillai-vs-navaneethammal-anr-on-19-february-2008","name":"Thiruvengada Pillai vs Navaneethammal & Anr on 19 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-02-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-29T03:40:13+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thiruvengada-pillai-vs-navaneethammal-anr-on-19-february-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thiruvengada-pillai-vs-navaneethammal-anr-on-19-february-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thiruvengada-pillai-vs-navaneethammal-anr-on-19-february-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Thiruvengada Pillai vs Navaneethammal & Anr on 19 February, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11386","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11386"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11386\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11386"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11386"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11386"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}