Find a Lawyer

Second Appeal No. 144 of 19715, decided on 22nd 3anuary, 1981.

‑‑‑ S. 15, Explanation read with Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 100‑Concurrent findings of fact‑‑Rent Controller presuming under S. 114, Evidence Act (I of 1872) service of notice under S. 30, Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 (XXVIII of 1958) having teen effected‑Additional District Judge without examining reasons given by Rent Controller disposing of ques tion by holding appellant's denial of service of notice as bogus pies and not affirming finding of Rent Controller by any independent appraisal of evidence but concluding on his own comparison of signatures‑He/d, no concurrent finding of fact by two Courts below existed in circumstances.‑[Findings of fact].

Gulzar Began v. Sairah Bibi 1972 S. C M R 251 rel.

Abdul Majid v. Khalit Ahmed P h D 1955 F C 38 ref.

‑‑ S. 15-Appeal‑Conclusion of fact'‑Respondent's evidence not suggesting disputed signature to be that of appellant‑Respondent only producing acknowledgement receipt but not stating same to be bearing appellant's signature‑Appellant positively denying signa ture‑Additional District Judge deciding receipt of notice on basis of his own comparison of signatures‑Such mode of reaching con clusion on question of fact, held, not safe.‑[Question of fact].

S. M. Zahir v. Fazal Ali 1974 S C M R 490 distinguished.

Kessarbai v. Jethabhai Jivan A I R 1928 P C 277 fol.

‑‑ S. 73‑Comparison of signatures‑Many 'documents on record containing admitted signatures of appellant‑Additional District Judge comparing disputed signature with only ore admitted document‑Held, inference drawn by Additional District Judge; purely subjective and totally lacking reasons for his conclusion.

‑‑Maxim: Audi alteram partem (no one should be condemned unheard)‑No party moving Court for comparison of signatures‑Ad ditional District Judge comparing signatures in absence of parties Comparison of signatures in circumstances; held, against natural justice and comparison of signatures after notice to parties more consonant with requirements of justice.‑[Maxim].

‑‑ S. 67‑Objection to admissibility of document‑Landlady (appellant) only producing acknowledgement receipt but not asserting tenant (appellant) having signed notice‑Service of notice it self fact in issue‑Held, absence of objection to reception of document in evidence will not constitute estoppel against appellant as to mode of proof‑Held further, raising ‑issue of non‑service of notice amounts to objection of, not signing document.‑[Document].

Mohammad Yousuf v. S. M. Ayub P L D 1972 Pesh. 1975 'and Abdullah v. Abdul Karim P L D 1968 S C 140 distinguished.

Zaheer Hassan for Appellant.

A. Aziz Khan for Respondent,

Date of hearing : 22nd January, 1981,.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.