Law: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)

Section: 39, 42

Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) ---

----Ss. 39 & 42---Elderly and illiterate lady---Suit for declaration and cancellation of sale deed---Execution of sale deed denied by elderly and illiterate lady---Fraud regarding registration of sale deed, alleging of---Burden of proof---Plaintiff (elderly and illiterate lady) was not required to prove the factum of fraud; rather, the burden lay upon the beneficiaries of the sale deed to establish the genuineness of the transaction---Presumption attached with registered sale deed was rebuttable---Facts in brevity were that the predecessor-in-interest (vendor) of the petitioners filed a declaratory suit challenging the validity of a registered sale deed in favour of the respondents/defendants (beneficiaries) regarding the suit property claiming that at the time of execution of the impugned sale deed, she was an illiterate woman, approximately 80 to 90 years old, issueless, and her husband had passed away--She alleged that her close relatives (respondents/defendants) committed fraud---The trial court and appellate court decreed the suit by declaring the sale deed as null and void and ordering its cancellation, however, the High Court allowed the civil revision filed by the respondents/defendants (beneficiaries), holding that the deceased vendor and petitioners had to discharge the burden to prove the factum of fraud and forgery---Core point for determination by the Supreme Court was as to "Whether the burden of proof lay solely on the plaintiff/vendor (elderly and illiterate lady) to establish fraud, or whether the beneficiaries of the impugned transaction were required to prove the genuineness and bona fides of the transaction?"---Held: Presumption of truth was attached to the registered sale deed which was a public document but the said presumption was rebuttable---As the vendors alleged fraud regarding the registered sale deed and agreement in question, therefore, it was duty of the respondents/defendants being beneficiaries to prove the genuineness of the transaction qua the suit property in their favour through bringing on record confidence aspiring and trustworthy evidence---Respondents/defendants (beneficiaries) were legally bound to prove the genuineness of the alleged transaction by producing the concerned Registrar but the needful was not done--Similarly the respondent (beneficiaries) were bound to prove the payment of sale consideration but the bank record or any official/officer of bank was not produced by respondents to prove the factum of payment of sale consideration, therefore, the respondents being beneficiaries could not discharge the onus to prove the genuineness of the transaction in their favour---The judgment of the High Court whereby, the petitioner/plaintiff (vendor) was held responsible to prove the factum of fraud was passed against the settled law of the country on the subject---Once fraud was alleged by the original owner then the beneficiaries of the sale transaction were bound to show genuineness of the alleged transaction---Impugned judgment of the High Court was set-aside, resultantly the judgments and decrees of the trial court and the district court were restored---Appeal was allowed, in circumstances.