Case Note & Summary
The case pertains to a property dispute arising from sale deeds executed by Hiralal in favour of his daughter Bhejanbai and his wife Thamabai on 30 June 1972. The appellant, Keshaorao, is the son of Hiralal and was defendant no.2 in the suit. The respondents, Bhejanbai (daughter) and Thamabai (wife), along with other legal heirs, filed a suit for possession of the lands sold to them, alleging that after a partition on 28 March 1972 between Hiralal and the appellant, Hiralal executed two sale deeds: one of 3 acres from Khasra No.364 for Rs.6,000 in favour of Bhejanbai, and another of land from Khasra No.114/2 for Rs.4,000 in favour of Thamabai. Possession was delivered, and names were mutated in revenue records. However, the appellant later got his name mutated and dispossessed the plaintiffs in 1978-1979. The appellant contended that the sale deeds were bogus, fake, and executed under undue influence without his consent. The trial court decreed the suit, directing the appellant to deliver possession of 3 acres and 2 acres respectively. The first appellate court dismissed the appeal. In second appeal, the High Court examined whether the concurrent findings were perverse. The court noted that the appellant failed to lead any evidence to prove undue influence or that the sale deeds were not genuine. The courts below had relied on the registered sale deeds and the testimony of witnesses. The High Court held that there was no perversity in the findings and dismissed the appeal with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Section 100 CPC - Concurrent Findings of Fact - The High Court in second appeal cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are shown to be perverse or based on no evidence. The appellant failed to demonstrate any perversity in the findings of the trial court and first appellate court regarding the genuineness of the sale deeds. (Paras 1-5) B) Evidence Act - Undue Influence - Burden of Proof - The burden to prove undue influence lies on the party alleging it. The appellant/defendant no.2 failed to lead any evidence to show that the sale deeds were executed under undue influence or without consent. The courts below rightly held that the sale deeds were valid and binding. (Paras 2-4) C) Property Law - Sale Deed - Validity - Registered Sale Deed - A registered sale deed carries a presumption of validity. The appellant's mere allegations of bogus and fake transactions without any evidence are insufficient to rebut such presumption. The concurrent findings of the courts below that the sale deeds were genuine and supported by consideration were upheld. (Paras 2-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the concurrent findings of the courts below regarding the validity of the sale deeds executed by Hiralal in favour of his daughter and wife are perverse or based on no evidence, warranting interference under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the second appeal with no order as to costs, upholding the concurrent findings of the courts below that the sale deeds were valid and the appellant was liable to deliver possession.
Law Points
- Concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with in second appeal unless perverse or based on no evidence
- Burden of proof on party alleging undue influence
- Validity of registered sale deed presumed unless rebutted by cogent evidence
