Roop Kumar v. Mohan Thedani (AIR 2003 SC 2418)

Introduction

• This landmark judgment deals with the rule of best evidence enunciated under Section 91 and Section 92 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA).
• The Hon’ble Supreme Court accepted the findings of the High Court and granted relief to the plaintiffs.

Facts

• The respondent plaintiff no.1 was the tenant of a shop registered under the Shops and Commercial Establishments Act.
• Plaintiff no. 2, Tahil Ram is father of Plaintiff 1 and his power of attorney holder.
• Plaintiff no.2 entered into an agency-cum-deed of license with the appellant-defendant on 15^th May 1975 and the terms of such agency-cum-license agreement was incorporated in an agreement dated 15^th May1975.
• As per the agreement, while the defendant would use the premises for showroom, the plaintiffs were to receive their commission @ 12% on tailoring business and @ 3% commission on the sale of materials of all kinds as conducted by the appellant-defendant.
• In terms of clause 5 of the agreement, the appellant-defendant was to keep separate accounts of the tailoring and cloth materials.
• The agreement expired on 14^th May 1980 and was never renewed.
• It is to be noted that at no point of time was the possession handed over to the defendant.
• Defendant, however, trespassed by destroying all traces of evidence of possession and has started displaying the signboards and other advertisement materials, as if M/s Roop Tailors and Drapers were conducting business in the suit premises.
• Note that accounts were rendered up to 30^th June1976 and payments were made by cheques and other means. Accounts were also rendered up to 31^st March 1978 by the defendant under his own hand and signatures.
• After that date, the defendant neither rendered accounts nor made any payment in spite of repeated reminders and requests.
• Legal notice was served through registered post for payment of commission, and a demand was made for true and faithful rendition of accounts.
• After 14^th May 1980, defendant was asked to vacate the premises, but he forcibly continued to occupy the premises.
• This led to the initiation of proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPc).
• The defendant, to frustrate the legal demands of the plaintiffs, filed a suit for injunction.
• Plaintiffs claimed a decree for possession of the shop along with a decree for damages and for payment of the commission and rendition of accounts.
• The stand taken by the defendant was that the purported agreement was a sham agreement and there was no agreement relating to commission.
• The Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs and held that the transaction between the appellant and the respondent amounts to license and not sub letting.
• The High Court also supported the findings of the Trial Court.

Issues Involved

• Whether on the facts of the case the reasons given by the defendant-appellant in his evidence for claiming the agreement as sham document can be accepted?

Observations

• The Hon’ble Supreme Court first of all discussed the rule of best evidence embodied in Section 91 and Section 92 of IEA.
• The Court observed that Section 91 and 92 supplemented each other and none of them can exist without the other.
• However, the two Sections differ in some material particulars, while the former applies to both bilateral and unilateral documents the latter applies to only to bilateral documents.
• The grounds of exclusion of extrinsic evidence are:
  • To admit inferior evidence when law requires superior would amount to nullifying the law;
  • When parties have deliberately put their agreement into writing, it is conclusively presumed, between themselves and their privies, that they intended the writing to form a full and final statement of their intentions, and one which should be placed beyond the reach of future controversy, bad faith and treacherous memory.
• The Supreme Court with respect to this case held that respondent-plaintiff No.1 had proved on record that the appellant-defendant had acted upon the agreement by himself, submitting the statements giving the account of tailoring and sale of materials as well as payment of commission on the basis of statements as per the terms of an agreement.
• The Supreme Court rejected the plea of sub tenancy on the ground that Section 16(2) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (DRA) provides that sub tenancy cannot be created without the permission of the landlord, hence something which is forbidden by law cannot be pleaded.

Conclusion

• The Supreme Court in this case talked about the rule of best evidence which is laid down in Section 91 and Section 92 of IEA which provides that when any document is reduced to writing oral evidence is not allowed (except for the circumstances mentioned in proviso to Section 92).
• Further, it was also observed by the Court that when anything is against the law it cannot be taken as ground of plea by the plaintiff.
• Conclusively, the Court in this case refused to hold that the agreement was sham because the defendant himself acted on the agreement.