IMPORTANT POINT
The burden of proof regarding the execution of a sale agreement lies with the party denying its existence, and failure to provide evidence can lead to adverse inferences against that party.

JUDGMENT :

Rajnish Kumar, J.

1. Heard, Shri Avadhesh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Aditya Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code 1908 has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 28.02.1986 passed by II Addl. District Judge, Faizabad in Civil Appeal No.410 of 1980; Smt. Ram Sanehi and others Versus Aditya Prakash which has been dismissed with cost affirming the judgment and decree dated 24.09.1980 passed by the Munsif, Hawali, Faizabad in Regular Suit No.182 of 1979; Aditya Prakash Pandey Versus Srimati Ram Sanehi and others, by means of which the suit had been decreed providing therein that the defendant no.1 would execute the registered sale-deed within one month after taking Rs.2000/- from the plaintiff failing which the plaintiff would get it done from the court on the expenses of defendants.

3. The substantial questions of law formulated in this appeal are as under:-

“(1) Whether the burden to prove that the transaction with an illiterate and infirm village lady was made, fairly, consciously and with independent advice of the lady or not was on the defendant-lady or on the plaintiff-respondents and as to whether without proof of the same, the courts below were justified in decreeing the suit?"

(2) Whether the lower appellate court was justified in refusing the prayer of the lady to get herself examined in court and still drawing inferences for not examining herself."

4. The brief facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are that the plaintiff-respondents had filed suit for specific performance and damages with the allegation that defendant no.1 was the sirdar of the disputed land. She wanted to dispose of, for which an agreement for sale had taken place in between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 for Rs.8000/-. Out of which a sum of Rs.6000/- was paid to the defendant no.1 by the plaintiff. Defendant No.1 executed an Ikrarnama because at that time this land was Sirdari land of defendant no.1. Defendant no.1 agreed to execute a sale deed in favour of plaintiff in respect of the land in question after becoming the Bhumidhar. She also agreed to give the possession to the plaintiff and gave it after taking Rs.6000/-. Defendants no.2 to 5 are the Pattidars of plaintiff. They kept enmity with him. They misguided the defendant no.1. When the plaintiff went to defendant no.1 to pay the remaining amount and get the sale deed executed, she refused to take it and she told that she executed a sale deed in favour of defendants no. 2 to 5 in respect of the land in question. Defendants no.2 to 5 had misguided the defendant no.1 and got the sale deed executed in their favour from her. Defendant no. 2 to 5 were knowing this fact that defendant no.1 had executed Ikrarnama in his favour even then they persuaded defendant no.1 to get the sale deed executed in their favour.

5. Defendant no.1 had filed written statement and alleged that she had executed a sale deed in favour of defendants no. 2 to 5 in respect of the land in question after taking consideration of Rs.9000/-. She alleged that she never talked with plaintiff to sale the land in question. She never executed any Ikrarnama in favour of the plaintiff. She never talked with plaintiff to give the possession to him. The plaintiff was not in possession over the land in question. She never made her signatures or thumb impression over any plain and blank paper. The plaintiff never raised any objection for execution of sale deed in favour of defendants no.2 to 5.

6. Defendants no. 2 to 5 had filed their written statement alleging that defendant no.1 was the Sirdar of the land in question. She deposited twenty times land revenue and thereafter she became the Bhumidhar of the land in question. She executed a sale deed dated 24.06.1976 in favour of defendants no. 2 to 5. She delivered the possession to the defendants no. 2 to 5. They have been coming in possession over it. They have become th