The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of placing the onus of proving fraud on the party alleging it, the application of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act to invalidate a deed of cancellation, and the requirement for courts to consider all relevant evidence in reaching a decision.

S.N.Hussain, J.

1. This second appeal has been filed by the sole plaintiff-respondent-appellant challenging the judgment and decree of the learned court of appeal below.

2. The matter arises out of Title Suit No. 94 of 1988, which was filed by the appellant for specific performance of contract by way of directing defendant no. 1 to accept balance consideration money and give her the registration receipt of registered sale deed (Ext. 2) dated 10.9.1986 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff with respect to the suit land.

3. The said suit was decreed by the learned Munsif, Banka vide his judgment and decree dated 30.4.1991, which was challenged by the defendants in Title Appeal No. 55 of 1991. The said title appeal was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge-l, Bhagalpur vide judgment and decree dated 27.1.1994 setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and rejecting the claim and suit of the plaintiff. The said judgment and decree of the lower appellate court has been challenged by the plaintiff in the instant second appeal.

4. The facts, which are admitted by the parties are that defendants agreed to sell the suit land to the plaintiff and the amount of consideration was fixed at Rs. 12,000.00 whereupon the defendants executed a sale deed, which was duly registered on 10.9.1986 (Ext. 2). The controversy between the parties is that according to the plaintiff Rs. 6,000.00 was paid in advance, as mentioned in the sale deed, and it was agreed that at the time of exchange of equivalents the remaining Rs. 6,000.00 will be paid by the plaintiff to the defendants, which amount was being offered by the plaintiff after registration of the sale deed. But according to the defendants no advance was paid and the plaintiff had to pay the entire consideration amount of Rs. 12,000.00 at the time of exchange of equivalent, which the plaintiff was not ready to pay, hence on 19.12.1988 the defendants executed a deed of cancellation of the aforesaid sale deed dated 10.9.1986. It may be noted here that the said deed of cancellation dated 19.12.1988 was not brought on record by the defendants although statement with respect thereto was made in the written statement (Ext. B).

5. Considering the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court formulated the following issues for deciding the suit:

(i) Is the suit as framed maintainable?

(ii) Has the plaintiff got any cause of action for the suit?

(iii) Has Rs. 6,000.00 part consideration money been paid in advance to defendant no. 1 by the plaintiff before execution of the sale deed?

(iv) Has plaintiff got possession from defendants on the suit land after execution of the sale deed?

(v) Is the deed of cancellation executed by defendant, cancelling the sale deed, valid, legal and binding upon the plaintiff?

(vi) Is plaintiff entitled to a decree of specific performance of contract?

(vii) Has any fraud been committed or played upon the defendants at the time of execution of sale deed by getting the fact of Rs. 6,000.00 advance, part consideration money being paid to defendant mentioned in the sale deed without paying it to defendant?

(viii) Is the plaintiff ready and willing to perform his part of contract from the day of execution of sale deed till today?

(ix) Are the defendants ready to perform their part of contract from the date of contract till today?

(x) Had the defendants any necessity to enter into contract of sale for getting consideration money of the sale deed?

(xi) Is the contract of sale binding and enforceable against minor defendants?

(xii) Is the suit barred by special and general law of limitation?

(xiii) Is the suit hit by the provisions of Specific Relief Act?

(xiv) Is the plaintiff entitled to any other relief or reliefs?

6. On the said issues evidence were led and arguments were made by the parties and the learned trial court decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 30.4.1991 on the basis of the following findings:

(a) The defenda