Back
VIKAS BUDHWAR
Naval Singh – Appellant
Versus
Radha Dixit – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. This is a second appeal purported to be under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 challenging the validity and the legality of the judgment, order and decree dated 17.1.2019 passed by the Court of IVth Addl. District Judge, Agra in Civil Appeal No. 47 of 2018, Naval Singh vs. Smt. Radha Dixit, as well as the judgment, order and decree dated 25.2.2017 passed by the Court of Small Causes/Civil Judge, Agra in Original Suit no. 526 of 2010, Naval Singh vs. Smt. Radha Dixit.
2. Briefly stated, facts shorn of unnecessary details are that plaintiff-appellant as per the averments contained in the plaint in Original Suit No. 526 of 2010 instituted before the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Agra being Naval Singh Vs. Smt. Radha Dixit had claimed himself to be the absolute owner and in actual physical possession of demised property being Khasra no. 688 and 672, Rakba 0.023 hect, situate at Sikri (2 hissa), Tehsil Kirawali, district Agra.
3. According to the plaintiff-appellant, the defendant respondent being Smt. Radha Dixit wife of Sri Shanti Swaroop is residing just in front of the plaintiff-appellant. As per the case set up in the plaint, the plaintiff-appellant
Point of Law : There is a presumption that a registered document is validly executed and a registered document, therefore, prima facie, would be valid in law.
The burden of proof in a property dispute lies on the person claiming the title, and strict compliance with the provisions of the Registration Act is necessary for the validity of a sale deed and reg....
The distinction between signing and executing a document is crucial; mere signature admission does not equate to execution, impacting the validity of registration.
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 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 registration of a document executed posthumously is valid if the registering officer follows the prescribed procedures, and procedural irregularities do not invalidate the registration.
The court emphasized the importance of proving ownership, adhering to limitation periods, and joining necessary parties in civil suits.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the presumption of genuineness attached to a registered document and the burden of proof in challenging its validity.
The court emphasized the importance of proving ownership and complying with the rules of non-joinder of parties and limitation in civil suits.
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
