High Court of Gauhati

Birendra Sankar Sanyal and Ors. v. Dinesh Chandra Sarma

MANU/GH/0774/2015

09.09.2015

Law of Evidence

No duty of Defendant to disprove Plaintiff’s unsubstantiated case

Plaintiff asserting illegal and in-operative deed for sale of land must prove as such and establish its own right, interest and possession over the land. Gauhati High Court dismissed a claim by the Plaintiffs for not having fulfilled the initial burden of proof under Sections 101 and 102 of the Evidence Act, 1872. It added, “there was no further duty on the part of the Defendant to lead evidence to disprove Plaintiffs’ case.” The case was predicated on Plaintiffs’ assertions that Defendant had failed to pay balance amount towards purchase of land, resulting in the cancellation of agreement to sell, and possession returning to Plaintiffs. However, no evidence was tendered to that effect; original sale deed was not adduced by Defendant, rendering ‘difficult’ for Plaintiffs to prove the same was a forged document.

Relevant

Anil Rishi vs. Gurbaksh Singh MANU/SC/8133/2006
Narayan Govind Gavate & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in MANU/SC/0015/1976
Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Section 101 of the Act Section 102 of the Act

Tags : Sale of land burden of proof plaintiff

Share :