Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. The learned trial Judge has framed the necessary issues and recorded the evidence of both P.W. 1 and D.W. 1 and after hearing the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, the learned Judge has decreed the suit by his judgment and order dated 8th January, 1996. Hence this appeal by the appellants-defendants.

6. Heard Mr. Navin Parekh, learned Counsel for the appellants-defendants, and Mrs. Vasundhara Deshpande, learned Counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs.

7. It has been emphatically submitted by Mr. Parekh, learned Counsel for the appellants-defendants, that the learned trial Judge has committed an error in passing the decree in the absence of any evidence regarding fraud and forgery. The learned Counsel had further vehemently submitted that the burden of proof is not discharged by the respondents-plaintiffs and, therefore, the onus of proof is not shifted on the appellants-defendants. It has been submitted that the witness examined on behalf of the plaintiffs in support of the plaint has no personal knowledge and has not stated a word that fraud or forgery has been committed by the defendants. It has been further submitted that no document was brought on record and in the absence of any such document, the allegation of fraud or forgery cannot be held proved and the burden of proof rests on the plaintiffs who allege the same in the plaint. These are the crucial points raised by the learned Counsel for the appellants-defendants while challenging the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court as perverse as it is based on no evidence. In support of his submissions, the learned Counsel has cited the following authorities :-

11. This is all the evidence on record. Now, the Court has been called upon to decide the question:-

Can reliance be placed on such evidence and can it be held that the plaintiffs have proved their case & can a decree by passed on the basis of such evidence?

12. Mr. Navin Parekh, learned Counsel for the appellants-defendants, has submitted that the plaintiffs have failed to prove the allegation in the plaint regarding fraud and forgery. It has been vehemently submitted that P.W. 1 Gomatiprasad Pandey has no personal knowledge regarding the execution of the deed of conveyance. Whatever evidence that is recorded by the Court of this witness is hearsay evidence. In the absence of any corroborative evidence, no decree could be passed. It has been submitted by Mr. Parekh that the burden of proof is absolutely upon the plaintiffs to prove the plea and allegation in the plaint. The learned Counsel has further submitted that the plaintiffs cannot succeed on account of the lacunae in the evidence of the defendants. The learned Counsel has further submitted that the deed of conveyance was within the knowledge of the plaintiffs as pleaded in the plaint which they failed to bring on record and in the absence of the document in question, the burden of proof of fraud and forgery cannot be held discharged by the plaintiffs. In support of his aforesaid submissions, the learned Counsel has relied on a ruling in Lalita James v. Ajit Kumar, , wherein it has been held thus:-

I am in full agreement with the findings of the learned Judge.

17. So far as the question of burden of proof as raised by the learned Counsel Mr. Parekh viz., that the plaintiff must first prove the fact of fraud and forgery by producing documents in the Court and in the absence of any such document, it cannot be held that the allegation in the plaint is held proved. Section 101 of the Evidence Act reads thus:-

"Burden of proof, - Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist."

22. As regards section 101 of Law of Evidence, it is well settled law that the burden of proof is caste upon the party who claims the right over the suit property. In the instant case, admittedly, the suit property was of the ownership of deceased Ambika Pandey. Therefore, the burden of proof is presumed to be discharged by the plaintiffs. Now, the onus is shifted upon the defendants to prove that the suit property was validly purchased by them by executing the deed of conveyance. The deed of conveyance is not brought on record by either party. In the plaint, it is alleged by the plaintiffs that the alleged deed of conveyance is a forged document. Mr. Parekh learned Counsel for the appellants-defendants, has submitted that since the document in question is not brought on record and the allegation of fraud and forgery has not been proved, the burden of proof is not discharged by the plaintiffs and, therefore, the suit must fail. It is not possible to agree with the submission of the learned Counsel that the plaintiffs have failed to discharge their burden regarding allegation of fraud and forgery. It is an admitted fact that the deed of conveyance is not brought on record by either party but it is pleaded in the plaint that the alleged document of deed of conveyance is a fraudulent document and forgery has been committed. The question, therefore, is as to whether the allegation of fraud and forgery is to be proved by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence? Following the view taken in the ruling reported in A.I.R. 1924 Nagpur 367 supra, it is to be noted here that in the instant case, P.W. 1 has been examined on behalf of the plaintiffs as the constituted power of attorney of plaintiff No. 1. Plaintiff No. 1, the widow of Ambika Pandey, is admittedly an illiterate lady. Further, the power of attorney holder (P.W. 1) has no personal knowledge regarding the transaction which took place between Ambika Pandey and the defendants. In this connection, it is necessary to consider the view taken in the ruling in Ramdeo v. Dulari Devi, , wherein it has been observed thus:-