LI Network
Published on: December 21, 2023 at 16:23 IST
The Karnataka High Court has established a pivotal precedent concerning disputes related to sale deeds. The Court decreed that in cases where fraud is alleged in connection with a sale deed, the burden of providing evidence to substantiate the claim lies with the party making the allegation.
The Court underscored that, according to Section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA), the party presenting the sale deed is not obligated to furnish additional evidence beyond the document itself.
This ruling came in response to a case where the Trial and First Appellate Courts had erroneously placed the onus on the appellant to prove that the contents of the sale deed were communicated to the respondent during the registration process, overlooking the fact that the responsibility of proving fraud rested with the respondent.
Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar, presiding over the bench, remarked, “The defendant has produced the sale deed at Ex.D.1. As the defendant has produced documents itself there is no need for him to give evidence to prove terms of the said sale deed in view of Section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act.”
The case involved a dispute over a sale deed dated 19.06.1997, wherein the appellant purchased 20-1 1/3 guntas of land. The respondent contested ownership, claiming only 10-1 1/3 guntas.
The Court emphasized that the burden of proving fraud, especially concerning the extent of the land mentioned in the sale deed, lies with the party disputing it—in this instance, the respondent.
Furthermore, the Court addressed the maintainability of the respondent’s suit, which sought a declaration and injunction without seeking possession.
Citing Section 26(1) of the Specific Relief Act, the Court held that a suit without seeking rectification or any declaration regarding the contents of a registered document, such as a sale deed, is not tenable.
The Court highlighted the importance of the respondent establishing fraud, especially since the sale deed is a registered document.
The ruling clarified that the appellant, who produced the sale deed, need not provide additional evidence to prove its terms.
The responsibility to demonstrate that fraud occurred in specifying the property’s extent in the document rested on the respondent.
In conclusion, the Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgments of the Trial and First Appellate Courts, and emphasized the need for a clear legal basis when disputing the contents of a sale deed.