Sri S. Basheer vs Sri H.M. Bhaskar

Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the Counsel for the appellant.

The appellant was the plaintiff before the Trial Court, seeking a declaration mat he was the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and the plaintiff himself asserting that the sale deeds under which the defendant may claim were fabricated documents. The Trial Court cast the burden of proving the plaint averments entirely on the plaintiff and dismissed the suit, which was affirmed by the First Appellate Court.

In the present second appeal, several substantial questions of law are sought to be raised. The primary contention of the counsel for the appellant is that the plaintiff having stoutly denied the authenticity of the sale deeds, under which the defendant claimed as being fabricated documents. The Trial Court ought to have having cast the burden of proving the sale deeds as being genuine on the defendant as having been executed by the erstwhile owners. In the absence of which, the Courts below have failed to address an issue which ought to have been framed, in terms of Section 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the appeal would have to be admitted even when there is no substantial question of law as the Courts below had failed to address the issue as regards the dispute regarding title.

This contention is not tenable since the defendant had produced the sale deeds, under which he claimed title as Exhibits D1 to D3, which have been addressed by the Trial Court. Though, on a different reasoning have held that the plaintiff had not established his case, the issue as regards title was addressed all the same. Hence, there is no substantial question of law that would arise for consideration as the findings of the Courts below have turned on findings on facts. Hence, the Appeal is rejected.