Bombay High Court
H. HUMKICHAND JAINversusJYOTI PRAKASH GHODE AND 6 ORS
- Disposal
- Partly allowed
Holding
The Court partially allowed the writ petition, permitting the production and admission of the sale deeds dated 20‑04‑1987 as evidence.
Summary
The petitioner, H. Humkichand Jain, filed a civil suit seeking declaration of ownership of a plot and directions to register a sale deed dated 18‑06‑1985, which he could not produce. During trial he applied to produce additional documents, specifically a carbon copy of the 1985 sale deed and two sale deeds dated 20‑04‑1987 executed by his vendor in favour of Niranjan Jain and Anil Jain, but the trial court rejected the application as irrelevant. The petitioner challenged this rejection via a writ petition, arguing that the 1985 deed was essential to prove his signature and that the 1987 deeds were relevant for comparison. The High Court examined the relevance of the 1987 deeds, noting that their execution was admitted by the respondents and that they would aid in determining the authenticity of signatures. Finding that the interest of justice required their admission, the Court partially allowed the writ petition, permitting the production of the 20‑04‑1987 sale deeds and directing that they be admitted as evidence, while no further evidence need be recorded. The parties were directed to proceed to final submissions.
Issues considered
- Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the petitioner's application to produce additional documents (sale deeds) as irrelevant.
- Whether the sale deeds dated 20‑04‑1987 are admissible evidence for determining ownership and authenticity of signatures in the dispute.
Subjects
- ownership
- sale deed
- production of documents
- civil suit
- evidence
- interest of justice
Judgment
2026:BHC-GOA:1695
14 WP 927 2026
Suzana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
WRIT PETITION NO.927 OF 2026
H. HUMKICHAND JAIN ... PETITIONER
Versus
JYOTI PRAKASH GHODE AND 6 ORS ... RESPONDENTS
Mr. Preetam Talaulikar, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. C. A. Coutinho, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ivan Santimano,
Advocate for Respondents No. 4 and 5.
CORAM:- S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
DATED :- 24th August, 2026
ORAL ORDER:
1. This Writ Petition impugns Order dated 17.03.2026 passed by
the District Judge-2, Panaji Sitting at Ponda in Civil Suit
No.10/2018 whereby the Petitioner's application for production of
additional documents came to be rejected.
2. The Petitioner is the original Plaintiff in the Suit. He
instituted Suit seeking relief for declaration of ownership of the
plot and also for directions to register the Sale Deed. It is the case
of the Petitioner that he acquired ownership of the suit plot in
pursuance of a registered Sale Deed dated 18.06.1985 executed by
late Prakash Ghode for consideration of Rs.32,845/- (Rupees
Thirty Two Thousand Eight Hundred and Forty Five only),
Page 1 of 3
24th August, 2026
14 WP 927 2026
however Petitioner could not collect the copy of the Sale Deed.
Defendants are disturbing his possession, which compelled him to
file present Suit
3. The Petitioner entered into the Witness Box and, after
recording of his evidence, he tendered an application seeking
permission to produce additional evidence. The Trial Court
rejected the Petitioner's application observing that the documents
which are proposed to be produced are not relevant for deciding the
controversy in the Suit.
4. Learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner submits that
the copy of Sale Deed dated 18.06.1985 was not on record.
However, by Order of this Court dated 06.08.2026 passed in
Miscellaneous Civil Application No.350 of 2026 in Writ Petition
No.634 of 2024, the Petitioner is permitted to produce a carbon
copy of the Sale Deed on record. The Petitioner wants prove the
signature on Sale Deed in comparison to the Sale Deeds dated
20.04.1987 executed by the Petitioner's vendor in favour of Mr.
Niranjan Jain and Anil Jain. The Learned Senior Advocate
appearing for Respondents submits that the Petitioner had
knowledge of the aforesaid documents, however, the same have
been produced at a belated stage without tendering any explanation
for the same.
Page 2 of 3
24th August, 2026
14 WP 927 2026
5. Considering submissions advanced by Learned Advocate
appearing for respective parties, this Court finds that atleast two
Sale Deeds dated 20.04.1987, which are executed by the
Petitioner's vendor in favour of Niranjan Jain and Anil Jain, should
be relevant for the purpose of deciding the controversy between the
parties and particularly when the signatures on the Sale Deeds
dated 20.04.1987 are admitted to Respondents. In that view of the
matter, this Court finds that interest of justice would be served if
the Petitioner's application for production of documents is partly
allowed to the extent of production of Sale Deeds dated
20.04.1987. Since, execution of the aforesaid documents is
admitted by the Respondents, same can be admitted in evidence
and exhibited. The parties need not record any further evidence in
the Suit and may proceed to make final submissions.
6. In result, the Writ Petition is partly allowed by modifying
impugned Order in aforesaid terms.
S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
Signed by: MARIA SUZANA REBELLO
Designation: Personal Assistant
Page 3 of 3
Date: 24/08/2026 17:51:47
24th August, 2026
Checking your session…