TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1966 (8) TMI 79
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t was filed on 18-3-1960. Defendants 1 and 8 to 6 claimed no title to the property and pleaded that there was no cause of action against them. Defendant No. 7 admitted plaintiff's claim that she had executed the two sale deeds on payment of consideration. Defendant No. 2 alone contested the suit. His case is that the two sale deeds (Exs. 4 and 5) were collusive and without considera-ti0n. The basis of his claim is that when Narayan was lying ill, defdt. No. 7 gave the disputed lands to him in 1955 on bhag basis for cultivation. During Narayan's illness defendant 7 borrowed ₹ 1,100 from him by various instalments and being unable to repay the said amount she verbally leased out the disputed lands to him on permanent basis on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... thus establish their possession within 12 years of the suit even on the finding that delivery of possession was not given under Exs. 4 and 5 and that defendant 2 was in wrongful possession prior to the sale deeds. Execution of the documents and payment of consideration thereunder are admitted by defendant 7 in her written statement. 4. Law is well settled that when execution of a document is either admitted or proved, the onus is on the executant to prove that consideration did not pass. In this case, if defendant 7 herself would have challenged the payment of consideration, the onus would have been on her to establish that she executed the documents. The position of defendant No. 2 is worse. He had failed to establish that no considerati....