SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2006 Supreme(SC) 438

P.K.BALASUBRAMANYAN, S.B.SINHA
Anil Rishi – Appellant
Versus
Gurbaksh Singh – Respondent


Judgement Key Points

Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points regarding the burden of proof, formatted with the requested references:

  • General Rule of Burden of Proof: The burden of proving a fact rests on the party who substantially asserts the affirmative issue, not the party who denies it; this rule may have exceptions. (!) (!) (!)
  • Initial Onus: The initial onus of proof is always on the plaintiff (Section 102 of the Evidence Act). (!) (!)
  • Requirement to Establish Fiduciary Relationship: Before a presumption of undue influence or a shift in burden regarding a fiduciary relationship can be drawn, the plaintiff must first establish the existence of such a relationship and the position of active confidence through pleadings and evidence. (!) (!) (!)
  • Pleading vs. Evidence: Pleading is not evidence; issues are raised based on pleadings, and a failure to admit a fiduciary relationship in the written statement means the relationship itself remains an issue to be proved. (!) (!)
  • Possession of Documents: Mere possession of the original sale deed by the defendant does not alter the legal position regarding the burden of proof; the plaintiff can apply for the document's production. (!)
  • Distinction Between Burden and Onus: There is a distinction between the burden of proof (which generally does not shift) and the onus of proof (which shifts as evidence is presented); the right to begin follows the onus probandi. (!) (!)
  • Application of Section 111: Section 111 of the Evidence Act applies to questions of good faith in transactions where one party is in a position of active confidence, but only after that relationship is established. (!) (!)
  • Error in Lower Courts: The Trial Court and High Court erred in shifting the burden to the defendant without first proving the fiduciary relationship, misinterpreting Section 101 of the Evidence Act. (!) (!) (!)
  • Outcome of Appeal: The impugned judgment setting aside the original issue framing is set aside, and the original issue ("Whether the sale deed... is forged and fabricated?") is revived. (!)

JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J.—Leave granted.

2. The defendant in the suit is the appellant herein. He is before us aggrieved by a judgment and order dated 14th December, 2005 passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in Civil Revision No. 1077 of 2005 dismissing his revision application arising out of an order dated 9.2.2005 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh.

3. An agreement to sell dated 26.03.1990 was entered into by and between the parties hereto in relation to the premises bearing House No. 86, situate in Sector 18A, Chandigarh. A sale deed was executed pursuant to the said agreement to sell on 27.03.1991. However, a suit for declaration was filed by the respondent herein alleging that the said sale deed dated 26.3.1991 was a forged, fabricated and was a void document. The appellant filed his written statement in the said suit denying or disputing the allegations contained therein. On the pleadings of the parties herein, issues were framed by the learned trial Judge including the following :

“Whether the sale deed dated 26.3.1991 is forged and fabricated as prayed for?”

4. An application was filed by the respondent for deletion of the said issue an



























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top