The burden of proof in establishing the validity of sale deeds lies on the party benefiting from the sale deed, and the party alleging fraud need not prove the same. The defendants must demonstrate how they acquired title over the disputed property.

JUDGMENT

M.M. Das, J.-- This appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

1. Whether the courts below have committed illegality on the face of the judgment by not placing the burden of establishing fraud and fabrication of the sale deeds on the party who pleads the same?

2. Whether after adducing the secondary evidence relating to execution of a sale deed by producing the certified copy thereof, the burden shifts heavily on the executants of the document to rebut the same as his pleading is based solely on fraud?

Facts leading to this appeal are as follows:

2. The respondent as plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 169 of 1989 before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagatsinghpur to declare the sale deed no. 4824 dated 15.10.1984 alleged to have been executed in the name of defendant no. 2 by the plaintiff and the sale deed dated 30.10.1987 executed by the defendant no. 2 in favour of defendant no. 1 as illegal and void.

3. The case of the plaintiff is that he has a share in the property constituting an area Ac. 45.00 of land purchased by registered sale deed dated 17.12.1955 from one Narayan Birendra Samanta and Ratnamali Jena of Killa Kujanga, P.S. Tirtol, Dist. Cuttack to an extent of Ac. 4.50 decimals and is in possession thereon. The defendant no. 1 declared to have purchased the suit property on 15.10.1988 from the defendant no. 2-Bishnu Charan Nayak, who alleged to have purchased the said land from the plaintiff. The defendant no. 1 had shown the sale deed executed in his favour by the defendant no. 2 from which the plaintiff came to know that his property has been included in the sale deed and it is mentioned in the sale deed that Jagu Nayak had sold the land to the defendant no. 2, i.e. the vendor of defendant no. 1. The plaintiff enquired from the defendant no. 2 about the matter and he showed the sale deed dated 15.10.1984 alleged to have been executed by one Jagu Nayak. It is further alleged by the plaintiff that imaginary boundaries have been mentioned with regard to the property of the plaintiff constituting an area Ac. 4.50 and the status of the land has been mentioned as Anabadi whereas the actual boundary is as mentioned in para-5 of the plaint. The plaintiff has specifically stated that he has never sold the suit property or any other land to the defendant no. 2 and it is evident that some other persons set up as Jagu Naik (the name of the plaintiff) have created the said sale deed in respect of the suit property and therefore, neither the defendant no. 2 nor defendant no. 1 has acquired any title in respect of the suit property. As the original sale deed dated 15.10.1984 which was called for from the defendant no. 2 was not produced by him, a certified copy thereof was marked as Ext. 1 on behalf of the plaintiff. The sale deed by which the defendant no. 1 claimed to have purchased the property from the defendant no. 2 has been marked as Ext. A in the suit. The trial court on the pleadings of the parties framed as many as seven issues out of which Issue No. 5 was to the effect that whether the sale deeds dated 15.10.1984 and 13.10.1987 are valid, genuine and legal. Answering the above Issue, the trial court has stated in the judgment that it is not disputed that the burden lies on the defendants who got the benefit under the sale deed to prove that the plaintiff executed the sale deed dated 15.10.1984 in favour of defendant no. 2. Further, the trial court found that the sale deed dated 13.10.1987 by which the defendant no. 2 has sold the suit property to the defendant no. 1 along with other properties marked as Ext. A, it is revealed that some lands of village Banito were sold by the defendant no. 2 and sale deed was registered at Tritol. Defendant no. 2 has been examined who stated that he has no land in Banito. The Record of Rights marked as Ext. 4 discloses that the land sold under the sale deed Ext. A by defendant no. 2 in favour of defendant no. 1 was not recorded in the name