9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are the validity of the sale deed, burden of proof on the defendant, and interference by the High Court in findings of fact. Validity of the sale deed: The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and injunction, claiming that the property in dispute was earlier mortgaged and sold to him by Ramayee. The defendant contended that the documents were forged and that the plaintiff had no right over the property. The First Appellate Court found that Ramayee and Lakshmi were the same person, and since Ramayee was the owner, the sale deed passed the title to the plaintiff. The burden of proving the sale deed was forged was on the defendant, who failed to discharge this burden. The First Appellate Court also confirmed the validity of the sale deed and the plaintiff's possession of the property. Burden of proof on the defendant: The High Court formulated substantial questions of law regarding the burden of proof on the defendant, the plaintiff's failure to prove the execution and registration of documents, and the possession of the suit property. The High Court, however, did not frame any question regarding the finding of fact that Ramayee and Lakshmi were the same person. The First Appellate Court's findings of fact could only be challenged on the grounds of no evidence or perversity, with a question of law needing to be framed. The High Court, acting as a First Appellate Court, re-appreciated the findings of the Subordinate Judge, which was beyond its jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC. Interference by the High Court in findings of fact: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, restoring the judgment of the First Appellate Court. The High Court was found to have acted as a First Appellate Court and re-appreciated the findings of fact, which it could not validly do under Section 100 CPC. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, with no order as to costs.
|
