2021 S C M R 1068
(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---
----Ss. 39 & 42---Suit for declaration and cancellation of mutation---Registered sale deed subsequent in time to oral sale of same property---Proof---Plaintiff claimed to be purchaser of suit property from his mother/real owner in the year 1973 whereas the impugned transaction of oral sale mutation in favour of predecessors of defendants was of the year 1971---Plaintiff had to prove the case through valid and reliable evidence and bring enough material for a court to cancel the mutation of sale in favour of predecessor of defendants---Plaintiff himself opted not to appear before the Court and make his statement on oath as required by law for appearance of a witness to take oath before the court for making a correct statement---Instead plaintiff appointed his attorney to appear before the court for which an inference could be drawn that without any justifiable reasons the plaintiff opted not to appear as his own witness when the case pleaded required his personal statement to substantiate the facts in his own knowledge i.e. for making a statement that his mother never appeared before the revenue officials for making a statement of sale of suit land and that she never received the consideration amount when admittedly she never disputed the sale in favour of predecessor of defendants in her life time who survived long after the sale in favour of predecessors of defendants---When the plaintiff pressed for grant of a declaration in his favour, he was required to make a statement himself by appearing in the witness-box otherwise when without any justification the plaintiff opted not to appear in the court in such like situation (adverse) inference could be drawn against the plaintiff---Furthermore the suit was not only barred by time but the plaintiff remained silent when continuous change of hands through sales, gifts of the suit land and its acquisition and construction of roads as well as construction of houses, commercial buildings etc. continuously was going on in the suit land and no objection was raised by the plaintiff for a long period of more than four decades---Plaintiff/respondent was required to prove the case pleaded by him, which he failed to do---Appeal was allowed and suit filed by plaintiff was dismissed with costs throughout.
(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---
----O. VI, R. 1---Pleadings---Scope---Pleadings could not be equated with evidence---Person claiming a right or interest in a property was bound to prove a case pleaded by it through valid reasonable oral as well as documentary evidence acceptable by the court.
0 comments:
Post a Comment