Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Natural Gas Supplies Prioritized Under Section 3 Essential Commodities Act Amid LNG Disruptions: Central Govt Order
11 Mar 2026
Delhi High Court Directs Ministries, CBFC to Implement Film Accessibility Features for Disabled Persons per RPWD Act Guidelines
11 Mar 2026
Foreign Nationals Entitled to Article 22(1) Grounds of Arrest in Known Language: Karnataka HC Sets at Liberty but Orders Handover to FRRO
11 Mar 2026
Madras HC Permits CBSE Student to Appear for Maths as Additional Subject Despite Policy Violation in Peculiar 'Rat Race' Circumstances
11 Mar 2026
Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Neha Rathore
11 Mar 2026
Menaka Guruswamy Elected India's First Openly Queer Rajya Sabha MP
11 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
GOUTAM BHADURI, SANJAY S. AGRAWAL
Bodhiram Yadav (Dead) Through Lrs. – Appellant
Versus
Gurusharan Singh Bhatiya S/o Surjeet Bhatiya – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT ON BOARD :
Goutam Bhaduri, J.
1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment & decree dated 25-1-2016 passed by the Ninth Additional District Judge, Raipur, in civil suit No.139-A/15 whereby the suit preferred by the plaintiff for cancellation of sale deed has been dismissed. Being aggrieved by such judgment, the present appeal.
2. (i) The facts, in brief, as pleaded by the plaintiff, are that the plaintiff was the owner of land bearing khasra No.338/7 & 339/2 admeasuring 0.069 hectares and khasra No.338/13 & 339/4 admeasuring 0.263 hectares total admeasuring 0.332 hectares situated at village Devpuri, PH No.37, RI Circle Raipur-2, Tahsil & District Raipur. Plaintiff stated that apart from that land, the other landS bearing khasra No.338/8 admeasuring 0.218 hectares and khasra No.338/14 & 339/5 admeasuring 0.109 hectares total admeasuring 0.327 hectares was sold by the plaintiff Bodhiram Yadav on 13-7-2011. However, the suit land, which bears khasra No.338/7 & 339/2 admeasuring 0.069 hectares and land bearing khasra No.338/13 & 339/4 admeasuring 0.263 hectares, were never sold by the plain
The burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove fraud, and complete particulars of fraud must be stated in the pleadings. A registered deed of sale carries a presumption of genuineness, and the onus....
The validity of a registered sale deed is presumed and the burden of proving its invalidity due to fraud lies on the challengers.
The validity of a registered sale deed is presumed unless strong evidence of fraud or intoxication is presented, and claims of limitation must be substantiated.
The burden of proof lies on the plaintiffs to establish allegations of fraud in executing a sale deed, which they failed to demonstrate, leading to the dismissal of their suit.
The burden of proof in allegations of fraud lies on the party in active confidence, and claims of ignorance are undermined by the execution of prior documents.
The burden of proof in civil trials must be borne by the plaintiff, who must substantiate allegations of fraud with appropriate evidence and particulars.
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
Listen Article