Case Note & Summary
The matter arose from an appeal before the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court against an order and judgment dated 7 August 2015, by which a Single Judge decreed Suit No. 1342 of 2003. The dispute centred on the ownership of the suit premises, being Flat Nos.1 and 2 together with a garage and servants' quarters on the ground floor of building Indrayani, Sophia College Lane, Mumbai. The original suit was filed by Pushpalata Sohanlal Sharma against Brij Madanlal Sharma, her husband Madanlal Nanakchand Sharma, and Ebasco Finance Company Pvt. Ltd., seeking declaration of ownership and possession. After Madanlal's death, his heirs Ajay and Rekha were brought on record. Both parties claimed to be 'Pushpa S. Sharma', the recorded owner of the suit premises. The Single Judge found in favour of the original plaintiff, declaring her owner, directing handover of possession, share certificate, mesne profits, and costs of Rs.2 lakhs. The appellants, Brij, Ajay, and EFCPL, filed the present appeal. The Court noted that the appellants' case was dishonest and false, built on forged and fabricated documents. Key evidence included a purported birth certificate which the Municipal Corporation of Amritsar confirmed was never issued, and a ration card that had been tampered with by interpolating the name 'Pushpa'. The appellants also made false statements regarding criminal proceedings and attempted to mislead the Court regarding the cause title. The Court dismissed the interim applications as not pressed. After hearing detailed arguments, the Division Bench held that the Single Judge had rightly decreed the suit, and that the appellants had attempted to deceive the Court with forged documents. The appeal was dismissed, and the impugned judgment was upheld.
Headnote
A) Evidence - Admissibility of Forged Documents - Birth Certificate as proof of identity - Not mentioned - Appellants relied on purported Birth Certificate No.3154 allegedly issued in Amritsar; evidence of PW-2 established no such certificate was ever issued; Single Judge found it forged; Appellants failed to rebut - Held that birth certificate was a forgery and not admissible to establish identity as Pushpa S. Sharma (Paras 10.1, 12). B) Evidence - Tampering of Documents - Ration Card as proof of alias - Not mentioned - Appellants relied on ration card originally issued in name of Brij Sharma but with name Pushpa interpolated in handwriting; tampering established to support false case - Held that tampered ration card cannot be relied upon to show Appellant No.1 used name Pushpa (Para 10.2). C) Civil Procedure - Conduct of Parties and Advocates - Abuse of Process - Not mentioned - Appellants filed false statements in affidavits, compelled junior advocate to alter address, filed further written submissions with unauthorized additions; Court recorded disappointment and found such conduct dishonest - Held that conduct demonstrated lack of respect for truth and abused court process (Paras 9, 10.3, 10.4, 10.5). D) Civil Procedure - Appellate Review - Upholding Decree - Not mentioned - Appeal against Single Judge decree; after hearing parties at length, Division Bench found no merit in appeal and upheld decree including possession and mesne profits - Held that impugned judgment dated 7 August 2015 was correct and appeal dismissed (Paras 6-8). E) Civil Procedure - Interim Applications - Non-prosecution - Not mentioned - Appellants had two pending interim applications for stay and additional evidence but counsel stated not pressing them; accordingly disposed of - Held that interim applications disposed of as not pressed (Para 8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Appellants could prove that Appellant No.1 is 'Pushpa S. Sharma' and therefore owner of suit premises; whether the Single Judge correctly held the birth certificate and ration card to be forged/tampered; whether the appeal should be dismissed.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed; Impugned Judgment upheld. The Court found Appellants' case dishonest and based on forged documents, affirmed decree declaring original plaintiff owner, directing handover of possession, share certificate, mesne profits, and costs of Rs.2 lakhs.
Law Points
- Declaratory relief for ownership
- handover of possession
- mesne profits
- costs
- forged documents not admissible
- identity dispute
- appellate review
- dishonest conduct of parties
