2012 (7) TMI 1139 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Decree of mandatory injunction.
2. Proof of execution of the Gift Deed.
3. Applicability of Section 90 of the Evidence Act.

Summary:

1. Decree of Mandatory Injunction:
The Respondent-Plaintiff filed a suit for a decree of mandatory injunction directing the Appellant to hand over vacant possession of the disputed property, claiming ownership. The Appellant, who was the Defendant, had been unsuccessful in the Trial Court, the First Appellate Court, and the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, which all ruled in favor of the Respondent.

2. Proof of Execution of the Gift Deed:
The Respondent-Plaintiff alleged that the Appellant was initially a licensee and later claimed ownership through a Gift Deed dated 15.05.1970, registered on 18.05.1970. The Respondent denied the execution of the Gift Deed, suggesting signatures might have been obtained through misrepresentation. The Trial Court and the Appellate Court found that the Gift Deed had not been proved u/s 68 and 69 of the Evidence Act, as the evidence provided was insufficient to establish its execution.

3. Applicability of Section 90 of the Evidence Act:
The Appellant relied on Section 90 of the Evidence Act, which presumes the validity of documents thirty years old. However, the document must be proved to be thirty years old from the date it is tendered in evidence. The Appellant's Gift Deed was tendered in evidence on 14.10.1999, only 29 years and 5 months after its execution, failing to meet the thirty-year requirement. The Court emphasized that the thirty-year period should be calculated from the date the document is tendered in evidence, not from the date of judgment or other events.

Conclusion:
The Appellant failed to prove the Gift Deed as required by law and could not benefit from the presumption u/s 90 of the Evidence Act due to the document's insufficient age at the time of tendering. The Appeal was dismissed, and the Interim Order was recalled, but no costs were imposed.