https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273456 The buyer failed to prove payment of the claimed balance sale consideration because the documentary record and account materials showed only part payment, and the disputed receipt was not reliable. The court applied the burden of proof principle and held that, once payment was specifically denied and supporting materials were produced, the burden shifted to the defendant to establish discharge, which she did not do. It also found the first appellate court had misread the evidence and improperly disturbed the trial court's reasoned findings. As the purchase money remained unpaid, the seller was entitled to a statutory charge over the flat for the unpaid balance under Section 55(4)(b) of the Transfer of Property Act. en-us Wed, 05 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 27 Jun 2018 17:27:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273456 The buyer failed to prove payment of the claimed balance sale consideration because the documentary record and account materials showed only part payment, and the disputed receipt was not reliable. The court applied the burden of proof principle and held that, once payment was specifically denied and supporting materials were produced, the burden shifted to the defendant to establish discharge, which she did not do. It also found the first appellate court had misread the evidence and improperly disturbed the trial court's reasoned findings. As the purchase money remained unpaid, the seller was entitled to a statutory charge over the flat for the unpaid balance under Section 55(4)(b) of the Transfer of Property Act. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 05 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273456