Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Order on Burden of Proof in Property Dispute: Ali Hussain vs. Rabiya (2019)

Date of the Judgment: 17 September 2019
Citation: Not Available.
Judges: N.V. Ramana, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Ajay Rastogi
Can a High Court reverse concurrent findings of lower courts based on a premise not pleaded by the parties? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a property dispute case where a woman claimed a sale deed was fraudulently executed using a forged power of attorney. The core issue revolved around who bears the burden of proving the validity of the power of attorney and the subsequent sale deed. The bench comprised Justices N.V. Ramana, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, and Ajay Rastogi, with the judgment authored by Justice Rastogi.

Case Background

The case involves a property dispute where the first respondent, Smt. Rabiya, claimed ownership of a property inherited from her father. She alleged that the appellant, Ali Hussain, along with others, fraudulently obtained a power of attorney in her name on April 25, 1995, and subsequently sold her property through a sale deed dated May 10, 1995. Smt. Rabiya contended that the power of attorney was forged and that she never received the sale consideration. She filed a suit seeking cancellation of both the power of attorney and the sale deed.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court dismissed the suit filed by Smt. Rabiya on January 19, 2001. The First Appellate Court also dismissed her appeal on August 27, 2001. The High Court of Uttarakhand, in a second appeal, reversed the decisions of the lower courts on August 18, 2008, stating that the burden of proof was wrongly placed on Smt. Rabiya. The High Court remitted the case back to the Trial Court for reconsideration based on its observations. The Supreme Court stayed the High Court’s order on November 14, 2008.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily deals with the principles of burden of proof in cases involving allegations of fraud and misrepresentation, particularly in the context of property transactions. The High Court relied on the principle that when dealing with a pardanasheen (veiled) and illiterate woman, the burden of proof lies on those who benefit from the deed to prove that the deed was explained to and understood by the grantor. The Supreme Court, however, focused on the pleadings of the case, noting that the plaintiff never claimed to be a pardanasheen or illiterate woman.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments (Ali Hussain):

• The appellant argued that the High Court erred in assuming that the plaintiff was a pardanasheen illiterate lady, as this was not pleaded in the plaint.
• The appellant contended that the burden of proof was wrongly shifted onto him to prove that the document was explained to and understood by the plaintiff.
• The appellant submitted that the issues framed by the trial court were based on the pleadings and the trial court had correctly negated the issues against the plaintiff.

Respondent’s Arguments (Rabiya):

• The respondent argued that she is a pardanasheen illiterate lady and the burden of proof should have been on the appellant to prove that the power of attorney was genuine.
• The respondent contended that the trial court and the first appellate court committed an error in placing the burden of proof on her to establish that the power of attorney was a forged document.
• The respondent supported the High Court’s finding that the burden of proof was on the appellant to establish the genuineness of the power of attorney.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court:

The Supreme Court did not frame specific issues but addressed the following points:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the concurrent findings of the lower courts based on a premise not pleaded by the plaintiff.
2. Whether the High Court was correct in shifting the burden of proof to the defendant, based on the assumption that the plaintiff was a pardanasheen illiterate lady.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Mst. Kharbuja Kuer vs. Jangbahadur Rai and Others [AIR 1963 SC 1203]: The Supreme Court acknowledged that the High Court relied on this case, but distinguished it because the plaintiff never pleaded that she was a pardanasheen illiterate lady.
• Farid-Un-Nisa(Plaintiff) vs. Mukhtar Ahmad and Another(Defendants) [AIR 1925 PC 204]: The Supreme Court acknowledged that the High Court relied on this case, but distinguished it because the plaintiff never pleaded that she was a pardanasheen illiterate lady.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the fact that the High Court reversed the concurrent findings of the lower courts based on a premise that was not supported by the pleadings. The Court emphasized that the plaintiff had not claimed to be a pardanasheen illiterate lady, and therefore, the principle of shifting the burden of proof to the defendant did not apply. The Court’s reasoning was focused on procedural correctness and the importance of adhering to the pleadings of the case.

Logical Reasoning:

The Supreme Court noted that the High Court had based its decision on the premise that the plaintiff was a pardanasheen illiterate lady, which was never pleaded in the plaint. The Court stated, “On perusal of the plaint, it reveals that it has nowhere been pleaded that the plaintiff-first respondent is a pardanasheen illiterate lady.” The Court further observed, “we are unable to find the pleadings in support that she was a pardanasheen illiterate lady and was entitled for protection of law and the burden was on the defendant-appellant to prove that the alleged power of attorney was the result of fraud.” The Court concluded, “the High Court has committed a manifest apparent error in reversing the concurrent finding of the two Courts below and on this score the impugned judgment is not sustainable.”

Key Takeaways

• The burden of proof in civil cases rests on the party making the claim.
• Courts should not make assumptions about a party’s status without proper pleadings.
• High Courts should not reverse concurrent findings of lower courts without a solid factual and legal basis.
• Pleadings are the foundation of a case, and courts must adhere to them.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and restored the judgments of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. The matter was not remitted back to the trial court.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a High Court cannot reverse the concurrent findings of the lower courts based on a premise that was not pleaded by the parties. This case reinforces the importance of pleadings in civil cases and clarifies that the principle of shifting the burden of proof for pardanasheen women applies only when such a status is specifically pleaded.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s judgment. The Court emphasized that the High Court had erred in reversing the concurrent findings of the lower courts based on a premise not pleaded by the plaintiff. The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the significance of pleadings and the proper allocation of the burden of proof in civil cases.