1949 (1) TMI 6 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of the sale deed in favor of the plaintiff's father.
2. Burden of proof on defendants.
3. Acceptance of affidavit evidence.
4. Relevance and admissibility of evidence.
5. Question of fact regarding the nature of the sale.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The subject matter of the case involved a tiled house and site sought to be recovered by the plaintiff based on a sale deed executed by the original owner in favor of the plaintiff's father. The defendants resisted the action, claiming a sale deed in their favor by the decree-holder auction purchaser in a suit against the original owner. The main issue was whether the sale deed in favor of the plaintiff was executed fraudulently. The trial and lower appellate courts ruled against the plaintiff, leading to the second appeal.

2. The first contention raised was regarding the burden of proof on the defendants. The judge rejected this argument, citing that after evidence was adduced by both sides, the burden of proof became less significant. Referring to previous judgments, the judge emphasized that the court could base its conclusion on the evidence as a whole and draw adverse inferences against a party failing to provide better evidence.

3. The second contention addressed the acceptance of affidavit evidence. The judge acknowledged that affidavit evidence is generally not permitted unless specific conditions are met, such as an agreement between parties or a court order. The judge found the affidavit in question did not meet the requirements of admissibility under the Evidence Act and should have been ruled out by the lower appellate court.

4. The core issue revolved around the nature of the sale in question, whether it was genuine or fraudulent. The judge noted that this was primarily a question of fact, and both lower courts had concurred in their conclusion against the plaintiff. The judge found no significant error to warrant a reversal of the decision.

5. In conclusion, the second appeal was dismissed with costs imposed on the appellant. The court directed the appellant to pay the court fee on the memorandum of the second appeal, with no further leave granted for appeal.