1984 Supreme(MP) 837

J. S. Verma, J.
Sumer v. Akloo
S. A. No. 467 of 1979 (J); Decided on 14-12-1984.

Headnote:(1) Evidence Act, 1872 -- S. 102 -- execution of sale deed denied specifically -- burden to prove execution lies on other party to prove execution in his favour.

        (2) Deed -- sale deed -- execution not proved -- consideration grossly inadequate -- such sale deed is of no consequence.

        This is plaintiffs second appeal. It arises out of a suit for possession of khasra No. 438/2, area 2.05 acres in mouza Jamgaon, tahsil and district Jabalpur. The plaintiffs are sons of Chhidamilal. The plaintiffs title to the suit land is based on a sale deed dated 20-12-62, which was executed at the time, when all the plaintiffs were minors. According to the plaintiffs, the suit land was purchased for Rs. 200/- only from the defendant by the plaintiffs father Chhidamilal, acting on their behalf. They also alleged that possession of the suit land was given to the plaintiffs, but the plaintiffs were forcibly dispossessed in June 1968. The suit for possession was filed in December 1968 on this basis. The defendant denied execution of any sale deed by him in favour of the plaintiffs or even deLi"Very of possession to them. The defendant, who is an illiterate person and can only affix a thumb mark, also stated that he had taken a loan of Rs. 200/- only from the plaintiffs father Chhidamilal but had never entered into any other transaction of sale of the suit land by the defendant or even execution of a sale deed by him had been denied.

        The plaintiffs suit was decreed by the trial Court but that decree has been reversed by the first appellate Court and the suit has been dismissed.

        Held : This appeal has been admitted for hearing on the only question whether the burden of proof was rightly placed on the plaintiffs to prove the sale in their favour by the defendant and whether dismissal of the suit on the ground that the plaintiffs have failed to discharge that burden is correct.

        On the rival pleadings, it is clear that it was for the plaintiffs to prove the sale transaction in their favour, including execution of the sale deed by the defendant since the same had been specifically denied by the defendant. There is this no error in placing the burden of proof on the plaintiffs and consequently dismissal of the suit on the ground that the burden was not discharged by the plaintiffs.

        Learned counsel for the appellants strenuously urged that the transaction of sale by the defendant in favour of the plaintiffs has been proved. This question does not arise for consideration since the appeal has not been admitted on this question. All the same, I am satisfied that no interference is called for even on this ground. The conclusion reached by the Court below in that the consideration of Rs. 200/- only for 2.05 acres of land adjoining the city of Jabalpur was grossly inadequate and that execution of the sale deed by the defendant was not proved even otherwise. Looking to tile facts and circumstances of this case, which are not in controversy, the conclusion reached by the first appellate Court on this point appears to be quite reasonable, particularly in view of the gross inadequacy of consideration for the suit land. There is thus no occasion to interfere in this appeal. Appeal dismissed.