SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 1729

PATNA HIGH COURT
ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY, J
Deo Saran Rai – Appellant
Versus
Bindeshwar Rai – Respondent
FIRST APPEAL No.447 of 1990 | Title Suit No. 26 of 1985



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Samr Chandra Kr. Singh
For the Respondents: Mr.

The execution of the sale deeds by an elderly woman was deemed valid as the burden of proof regarding fraud and lack of consideration lay with the plaintiffs, which they failed to establish.

Headnote:(A) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 101, 102, and 92 - Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 - Validity of sale deeds - Plaintiffs claim sale deeds executed by Gena Kuer fraudulent and without consideration, while defendants assert lawful execution after understanding. Court held, burden of proof resides with the plaintiffs to demonstrate fraud or lack of understanding, finding failure to substantiate claims. Sale deeds valid and enforceable as executed for consideration; prior claims of the plaintiffs dismissed as without merit. (Paras 19, 55, 57, and 59)

(B) Burden of Proof - Transaction involving vulnerable individuals requires stronger evidence from dominant parties. (Para 32)

(C) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Compliance with laws governing land transactions, including permission required from authorities. (Para 50)

(D) Ta khubzul Badlain - Practice regarding transfer and possession of property upon completion of financial obligations. (Para 44)

Table of Content
1. identification of the parties involved. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. grounds for plaintiff's claims regarding gena kuer's land. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
3. defendant's counterarguments and denial. (Para 11 , 12 , 13)
4. defense's reliance on past judgments. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
5. trial court's findings on testimonies. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
6. onus of proof and understanding in contested transactions. (Para 26 , 27 , 28)
7. need for valid property transaction proofs. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34)
8. evaluation of the fraudulent execution claim. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38)
9. summary of plaintiffs' arguments against deeds. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42)
10. details on payment and contract compliance. (Para 43 , 44 , 45)
11. discussion on the benami transactions act. (Para 46 , 47 , 48)
12. discussion on permissions needed for land transactions. (Para 49 , 50 , 51 , 52)
13. final assessments and rulings by the trial court. (Para 53 , 54 , 55 , 56)
14. summary of the court's final order and appeal result. (Para 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61)

JUDGMENT

Date : 14-10-2025

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 28.08.1990 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Judgment’) and decree dated 11.09.1990 passed by the Sub- ordinate Judge-III, Hajipur at Vaishali (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned trial court’) in Title Suit No. 26 of 1985 wherein and whereunder the learned trial court has decreed the suit.

3. The respondents/plaintiffs have filed a suit with a relief to declare void the four sale deeds dated 29.06.1984 executed by Gena Kuer in favour of Mishri Lal Rai, Upendra Rai and Tej Narayan Rai and Smt. Fulmati Devi, Garmu Rai and Paano Devi and for other reliefs.

Prosecution Case

4. The case of the plaintiffs in short is that a genealogy has been given at the foot of the plaint which is part of the plaint and from perusal of the genealogy it will transpire that Nathuni Rai had five sons, namely, Parshuram, Birju, Bhukhan, Thakur Dayal and Bhagwan Rai who died issueless in the state of jointness. Parshuram was having a son, namely, Sheo Deo Rai. Sheo Deo Rai had three sons, namely, Prabhu Rai, Garbhu Rai and Dhupa Rai. Garbhu Rai is the defendant no.1 and Paano Devi is defendant no.2 who is the wife of Prabhu Rai. Fulmati Devi (defendant no.3) is the wife of Dhupa Rai and Mishri Lal Rai (defendant no.5) is the son of Garbhu Rai. Tej Narayan (defendant no.6) is the son of defendant no.2 and one son of Bhukhan Rai, namely, Baldeo Rai is the plaintiff no.1.

5. It is further submitted that Thakur Dayal was having a son, namely, Chulhai Rai. Chulhai Rai was having no son. Gena Kuer is the widow of Chulhai Rai who has died. It has further been submitted that an area on 01 Bigha 01 Kattha 16 Dhur situated in Lawapur Mahnaar and Lawapur Narayan and Salempur and Jisrajpur P.S. Mahnaar District-Vaishali was the property of Gena Kuer, widow of Chulhai Rai. It has further been submitted that R.S. survey is in the name of said Gena Kuer. Apart from this, 12 dismil of land being the part of 36 dismil, a joint land was in the share of Gena Kuer.

6. Further case of the plaintiff is that Gena Kuer died on 29.09.1984 and at the time of her death, only the plaintiffs and one Prabhu Rai were the heir of Bhukhan Rai. Garbhu Rai and Dhupa Rai were alive and these four persons were the heir of same class of Gena Kuer. As such, the plaintiffs were having one half share and Garbhu Rai and Dhupa Rai were also having one and half share in the property of Gena Kuer. It is further submitted that the possession of the parties is there on the land as per their share and the properties are joint.

7. The respondents/plaintiffs have come to know that appellants/defendants have got executed four sale deeds on 26.09.1984, first in the name of Fulmati Devi (defendant no.3), second in the name of Mishri Lal Rai, Upendra Rai and Tej Narayan Rai, thir

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top