Punjab-Haryana High Court
Raj Kumar vs Bhushan Pal on 23 August, 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR 4933/2012(O&M) Date of decision:23/08/2012
Raj Kumar ………….Petitioner
vs.
Bhushan Pal ………….Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH
They further denied the suggestion that the signatures of the tenant were obtained on blank papers or that the rent note was a forged and fabricated document. The proving of the rent note further found corroboration from the evidence of Handwriting and Finger Print Expert AW5 Mr. Anil Kumar Gupta, who duly proved his report A4 and opined that the signatures were that of the tenant Raj Kumar. In rebuttal, the tenant did not examine any Expert or led any other evidence to prove that the signatures were forged and fabricated or were obtained on blank papers.
At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner could not show any infirmity in the orders passed by the courts below, moreso, in view of provisions of Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872, prohibiting a tenant from raising the plea of title of the landlord who had inducted him at the initial stage.
Dismissed.