Back
ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Deo Saran Rai – Appellant
Versus
Bindeshwar Rai – Respondent
Ashok Kumar Pandey, J.—Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents.
2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 28.08.1990 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Judgment’) and decree dated 11.09.1990 passed by the Subordinate Judge-III, Hajipur at Vaishali (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned trial court’) in Title Suit No. 26 of 1985 wherein and whereunder the learned trial court has decreed the suit.
3. The respondents/plaintiffs have filed a suit with a relief to declare void the four sale deeds dated 29.06.1984 executed by Gena Kuer in favour of Mishri Lal Rai, Upendra Rai and Tej Narayan Rai and Smt. Fulmati Devi, Garmu Rai and Paano Devi and for other reliefs.
Prosecution Case
4. The case of the plaintiffs in short is that a genealogy has been given at the foot of the plaint which is part of the plaint and from perusal of the genealogy it will transpire that Nathuni Rai had five sons, namely, Parshuram, Birju, Bhukhan, Thakur Dayal and Bhagwan Rai who died issueless in the state of jointness. Parshuram was having a son, namely, Sheo Deo Rai. Sheo Deo Rai had three sons, namely, Prabhu Rai, Garbhu Rai and Dhupa Rai. Gar
The execution of the sale deeds by an elderly woman was deemed valid as the burden of proof regarding fraud and lack of consideration lay with the plaintiffs, which they failed to establish.
Burden of proof lies on those asserting validity of a transaction involving vulnerable parties; fraud undermines any purported execution of such deeds.
The burden of proof in civil trials must be borne by the plaintiff, who must substantiate allegations of fraud with appropriate evidence and particulars.
The court annulled a sale deed executed under fraudulent circumstances, affirming that a seller lacking exclusive rights cannot validly transfer property.
The court established that a transaction could be classified as a mortgage rather than a sale, emphasizing the burden of proof and admissibility of oral evidence.
The presumption of validity of a registered sale deed cannot be dismissed without compelling evidence to substantiate claims of fraud and incapacity.
Fraudulent execution of a sale deed renders it void ab initio, and knowledge of fraud triggers the limitation period for legal action.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
