TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>SC Reinforces Rule: Burden of Proof Stays with Asserting Party, Allows Additional Issues for Document Validity Disputes.</h1> <h3>Anil Rishi Versus Gurbaksh Singh</h3> The SC set aside the order reframing the issue regarding the validity of the sale deed dated 26.03.1991, reinstating the original issue. It emphasized ... Suit for declaration - sale deed was a forged, fabricated and void document - distinction exists between a burden of proof and onus of proof - HELD THAT:- The defendant-appellant having not admitted or acknowledged the fiduciary relationship between the parties, indisputably, the relationship between the parties itself would be an issue. The suit will fail if both the parties do not adduce any evidence, in view of Section 102 of the Evidence Act. Thus, ordinarily, the burden of proof would be on the party who asserts the affirmative of the issue and it rests, after evidence is gone into, upon the party against whom, at the time the question arises, judgment would be given, if no further evidence were to be adduced by either side. The fact that the defendant was in a dominant position must, thus, be proved by the plaintiff at the first instance. A distinction exists between a burden of proof and onus of proof. The right to begin follows onus probandi. It assumes importance in the early stage of a case. The question of onus of proof has greater force, where the question is which party is to begin. Burden of proof is used in three ways : (i) to indicate the duty of bringing forward evidence in support of a proposition at the beginning or later; (ii) to make that of establishing a proposition as against all counter evidence; and (iii) an indiscriminate use in which it may mean either or both of the others. The elementary rule is Section 101 is inflexible. In terms of Section 102 the initial onus is always on the plaintiff and if he discharges that onus and makes out a case which entitles him to a relief, the onus shifts to the defendant to prove those circumstances, if any, which would disentitle the plaintiff to the same. Thus, The order reframing the issue is set aside thus reviving the issue originally framed. The Trial Court will be free to frame any additional issue if it is felt necessary. The appeal is allowed as above. Issues:1. Validity of the sale deed dated 26.03.1991.2. Burden of proof in a case where the validity of a document is disputed.Analysis:Issue 1: Validity of the sale deed dated 26.03.1991The case involved an agreement to sell a property in Chandigarh, followed by the execution of a sale deed. However, a dispute arose when the respondent claimed the sale deed was forged and void. The trial court reframed the issue to determine the validity of the sale deed, shifting the burden of proof to the defendant. The High Court upheld this decision, emphasizing the defendant's possession of the sale deed and the need to prove its validity affirmatively.Issue 2: Burden of proof in a case of disputed document validityThe Supreme Court analyzed the burden of proof in cases where the validity of a document is contested. It referred to Section 101 of the Evidence Act, stating that the party asserting a fact must prove its existence. The court highlighted the importance of establishing a fiduciary relationship or active confidence between the parties to shift the burden of proof. The judgment cited precedents to explain that the burden shifts to the party in a dominant position to prove the transaction's fairness and genuineness when a fiduciary relationship exists.The court clarified that the plaintiff must first prove the existence of a fiduciary relationship before the burden shifts to the defendant. The judgment emphasized that difficulties faced by a party should not determine the burden of proof. It distinguished between the burden of proof and onus of proof, stating that the right to begin the case follows the onus probandi. The court also discussed the distinction between burden of proof and onus of proof, emphasizing that the burden of proof always lies with the party asserting a fact.In conclusion, the Supreme Court set aside the order reframing the issue and reinstated the original issue. The court allowed the Trial Court to frame additional issues if necessary, emphasizing the continuous process of shifting onus in the evaluation of evidence in cases involving disputed document validity.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
