Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal against the High Court's judgment which had set aside concurrent findings of the trial court and first appellate court and remanded the suit for fresh consideration. The dispute originated from a suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent (Smt. Rabiya) seeking cancellation of a sale deed dated 10th May 1995, alleging that the defendant-appellant (Ali Hussain) had forged a power of attorney in her name and sold the property to other defendants. The trial court dismissed the suit after framing issues and considering evidence, and the first appellate court affirmed that dismissal. In second appeal, the High Court admitted the appeal on two substantial questions of law regarding burden of proof, holding that the plaintiff was a pardanasheen illiterate lady and that the burden to prove the genuineness of the power of attorney lay on the defendants. The High Court remanded the matter to the trial court. The Supreme Court, upon examining the plaint, found that there was no pleading that the plaintiff was a pardanasheen illiterate lady. Consequently, the High Court had no factual foundation to frame such substantial questions of law or to shift the burden of proof. The Supreme Court held that the High Court committed a manifest error in reversing the concurrent findings and set aside the impugned judgment, restoring the judgments of the courts below.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Burden of Proof - Pardanasheen Illiterate Lady - The High Court erred in reversing concurrent findings and remanding the suit on the ground that the plaintiff was a pardanasheen illiterate lady, shifting the burden of proof on the defendants, when the plaint contained no pleadings to that effect. The burden of proof ordinarily rests on the party who attacks, and without factual foundation, the High Court could not frame substantial questions of law on that basis. (Paras 13-15) B) Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 101 - Burden of Proof - In a suit for cancellation of sale deed on ground of fraud, the burden lies on the plaintiff to prove fraud unless special circumstances like pardanasheen status are pleaded. The trial court and first appellate court correctly placed burden on plaintiff, and the High Court's interference was unwarranted. (Paras 13-15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in reversing concurrent findings of courts below and remanding the suit on the ground that the plaintiff was a pardanasheen illiterate lady, shifting burden of proof on the defendants, in the absence of pleadings to that effect.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment dated 18th August 2008, and restored the concurrent findings of the trial court and first appellate court dismissing the suit. No costs.
Law Points
- Burden of proof
- Pardanasheen illiterate lady
- Fraud
- Power of attorney
- Pleadings
- Substantial question of law
