The High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGRAM DAS Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 22-Sep-2025 18:44:45 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK RFA No.90 of 2008 (From the judgment and decree dated 11.03.2008 passed by the learned Ad-hoc Addl. District Judge (Fast Track) Court, Jagatsinghpur in T.S.No.37/84 of 2006/2002) Narayan Parida and Another …. Appellants -versus- Ram Chandra Parida and Others …. Respondents Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- For Appellant : Mr. D.P.Mohanty, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. S.Mishra, Advocate for R.1 CORAM: JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY JUDGMENT 20th September, 2025 B.P. Routray, J. 1. Heard Mr. D.P. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Appellants and Mr. S. Mishra, learned counsel for Respondent No.1. RFA No.90 of 2008 Page 1 of 22 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGRAM DAS Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 22-Sep-2025 18:44:45 2. The judgment and decree dated 11th March 2008 of learned Ad- hoc Addl. District Judge (Fast Track) Court, Jagatsinghpur passed in T.S. No.37/84 of 2006/2002 is assailed in present appeal by Defendants 2 & 3. The suit was filed by present Respondent No.1 as the Plaintiff praying for partition and to declare R.S.D. No.2410/2000 (Ext-A) executed in favour of Defendants 2 & 3 as void and invalid, along with other consequential reliefs. There are two sets of property involved in the suit as schedule-A and schedule-B. Schedule-B property is the property covered by R.S.D. dated 24th October 2000 (Ext-A). 3. The parties contested their case and upon adjudication the learned Trial Judge decreed the suit in favour of the Plaintiff drawing shares of the parties over the properties covered in both schedule-A & B treating the sale deed under Ext-A as void, without any specific declaration to that effect. The properties under lot No.II of Suit
Facts
Schedule-A has been decreed in favour of the family deity (Defendant No.1) with joint marfatdar of both parties. The portion of the decree where learned Trial Judge has treated the sale deed under Ext-A as RFA No.90 of 2008 Page 2 of 22 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGRAM DAS Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 22-Sep-2025 18:44:45 void covering schedule-B property, and directing partition of the same among the parties is subject matter of challenge in present appeal. 4. The relationship between the parties is that, late Dolagobinda Parida (Doli) is the common ancestor of the parties who had two sons and two daughters. Second son namely, Ram Chandra Parida is the Plaintiff. The family deity is Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.4 is the elder son, i.e. brother of the Plaintiff. Defendant Nos. 2 & 3 are the sons of Defendant No.4. Defendant Nos. 5 & 6 are the daughters of Dolagobinda and Defendant No.7 was the wife of Dolagobinda. 5. According to Plaintiff, entire property of the family was undivided and therefore there should be partition among the parties in respect of schedule-A properties. In addition to the same, the Plaintiff contends that the property covered in suit Schedule-B, allegedly sold by Dolagobinda under Ext-A in favour of Defendant Nos. 2 & 3, is not valid and the sale deed is a void document. It is for the reason that on the date of alleged sale on 24th October 2000, his father late Dolagobinda was not mentally fit to act independently to execute the sale deed. But the sale deed under Ext-A was signed by Late Dolagobinda by misrepresentation and fraud on the guise of getting financial assistance from the Office of Block Development Officer for RFA No.90 of 2008 Page 3 of 22 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGRAM DAS Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 22-Sep-2025 18:44:45 Indira Abas House. It is the further case of Plaintiff that there was no legal necessity on the part of Dolagobinda Parida to execute such sale deed in favour of Defendant Nos. 2 & 3, secondly, there was no passing of consideration money in the alleged execution of sale deed of schedule-B land and thirdly, there was no delivery of possession in pursuance of the impugned sale. 6. The Defendants had no objection with regard to partition of the suit schedule-A property and all the parties accordingly agreed for partition in respect of suit schedule-A property. But Defendant Nos. 2 & 3 who are the purchasers in respect of the sale deed under Ext-A, filed their joint written statement denying the contentions of the Plaintiff to treat the sale deed as a sham document and according to them the sale deed under Ext-A executed by late Dolagobinda Parida is a valid document being validly executed by him in their favour upon receipt of the sale consideration money. The further case of Defendant Nos. 2 & 3 is that, the legal necessity on the part of the seller was very well depicted in the sale deed itself and the recitals of the sale deed are self-explanatory which are not established to be incorrect by the Plaintiff. RFA No.90 of 2008 Page 4 of 22 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGRAM DAS Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 22-Sep-2025 18:44:45 7 The learned Trial Court while adjudicating the dispute framed seven issues amongst which Issue Nos. 6 & 7 are with regard to execution of the sale deed under Ext-A in respect of suit schedule-B properties. Said two issues read as follows:- Issues:- xxx xxx xxx 6. Is the sale deed dtd.24.l0.2000 executed by Dolagobinda Parida in favour of defendant nos.2 & 3 is illegal, invalid and void deed? 7. Whether the plaintiff has contributed funds for acquisition of suit schedule 'B' properties? It is to be noted that such finding of the Trial Court in respect of Issue Nos. 6 is the challenge made by Defendants No. 2 & 3 in present appeal. According to learned Trial Court, there was no legal necessity on the part of Dolagobinda Parida to execute the sale deed in favour of Defendants No. 2 & 3, based on the evidences led by different witnesses and upon a thorough analysis of the same. It is also the finding of the Trial Court that passing of consideration money for execution of sale of the property is not proved to be a genuine fact and thus, taking into all such circumstances it has come to the finding that RFA No.90 of 2008 Page 5 of 22 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGRAM DAS Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 22-Sep-2025 18:44:45 the Plaintiff has established his case to prove the sale deed under Ext- A as illegal and void.
Legal Reasoning
therefore, prima facie would be valid in law. The onus of proof, thus, would be on a person who leads evidence to rebut the presumption. In the instant case, Respondent 1 has not been able to rebut the said presumption.” RFA No.90 of 2008 Page 10 of 22 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGRAM DAS Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 22-Sep-2025 18:44:45 (emphasis supplied) In view thereof, in the present cases, the initial onus was on the plaintiff, who had challenged the stated registered document. xx .. xx .. xx ..” 14. It is true that when the terms and understandings between the parties are required to be reflected in writing in the document, to disprove the same oral evidence can be led in specific circumstances, and the provisions of Section 91 & 92 of the Evidence Act come into operation depending on the nature of document. What is submitted by Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the Plaintiff that in case of a challenge to the sale deed that it has been obtained by way of fraud and misrepresentation, in such circumstances the oral evidence by the party is permissible contrary to the recitals of the documents or in rebuttal to the contents of the document. It is true that when the character of the document is assailed being fraudulent or sham, it is open for the party to question the contents of the documents by rebuttal evidence. Indisputedly when the true character of a document is questioned, extrinsic evidence by way of oral evidence is admissible. [See Vimal Chand Ghevarchand Jain & Ors. Vs. Ramakant Eknath Jadoo, (2009) 5 SCC 713] So, it needs to be looked into the recitals of the sale deed at the first instance. According RFA No.90 of 2008 Page 11 of 22 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGRAM DAS Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 22-Sep-2025 18:44:45 to the recitals of the sale deed under Ext.A, the executant or the seller received the consideration amount of Rs.26,400/- from the purchasers for his legal necessity to sale the property. Such consideration money was paid in installments prior to execution of the sale deed. The Trial Court upon analysis of the evidences of the parties and their witnesses has come to the conclusion that since there is discrepancy in the pleading and evidence of the Defendants vis-à-vis the recitals of the sale deed with regard to nature of payment of consideration money, it is hard to believe that actual consideration money has been passed for execution of the sale deed in favour of Defendant Nos. 2 & 3. It is for the reason that, Defendant No.3 was though a minor below 18 years of age on the date of execution of the sale deed, but his age has been wrongly mentioned as 20 years in the sale deed and further, the statements of Defendant No.2 and his witnesses regarding payment of Rs.21,400/- on the date of execution of the sale deed to Doli Parida is contrary to the recitals of the sale deed that the amount was paid in installment. The further reason stated by the Trial Court that according to the statements of D.W.2, an attesting witness present at the time of registration of Ext.A, the contents of the document were not read over and explained to Doli Parida before he put signature in the document. RFA No.90 of 2008 Page 12 of 22 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGRAM DAS Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 22-Sep-2025 18:44:45 15. Admittedly the Trial Court gave finding on Issue No.7 against the Plaintiff that he failed to establish his claim regarding payment of money to Doli Parida at the time of purchase of suit schedule-B property in the year 1972. This part of the finding of the Trial Court is never challenged by the Plaintiff. On Issue No.6, it is the conclusion of the Trial Court that Defendant Nos. 2 & 3 played fraud and misrepresentation on the executor – Doli Parida, first, by taking him to the office of the registration and getting his signatures on the stamp papers in the guise of belief given to him that he had been to the office of Block Development Officer to sanction the loan for repairing the house damaged in super cyclone. The further conclusion of the Trial Court in respect of payment of consideration money by Defendant Nos. 2 & 3 is that, they did not have that financial capability to pay Rs.26,400/- in the year 2000. It is because Defendant No.3 was a minor and Defendant No.2 had scanty income of Rs.800-1000/- per month during that time. 16. It is true that D.W.2 namely, Bata Krushna Barik is an attesting witness to the sale deed and he has deposed during his cross- examination that the contents of Ext.A were not read over and explained to Dolagobinda Parida before the Sub-Registrar. But at the RFA No.90 of 2008 Page 13 of 22 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGRAM DAS Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 22-Sep-2025 18:44:45 same time the deed writer (D.W.3) and Defendant No.2 (D.W.5) have stated that the contents having been read over and explained to Dolagobinda Parida, he put his signature on the same. According to the evidences of different witnesses, the office of the Sub-Registrar situates near the office of the B.D.O., but they are not adjacent. It is though stated by the witnesses that Doli Parida was ill prior to two/three years of execution of the sale deed, but it has never come on record that he was not in a state of sound mind. Though no evidence is there on record to say that Doli Parida was bedridden at that time, who died on 17th November 2001, still it is the finding of the Trial Court that he was not in a state of sound mind and bedridden. Here the trial Court has committed error giving such finding without any material brought on record in that respect. Illness does not mean that a person is seriously ill and unable to move or his mental state is not sound. To arrive at such specific conclusion there must be material evidence brought on record to justify the same. But the Trial Court in the present case has gone far beyond the evidence of the witnesses to derive the conclusion that Doli Parida was not in a fit state of mind and bedridden at the time of execution of the sale deed, which is certainly an error apparent in the impugned judgment. RFA No.90 of 2008 Page 14 of 22 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGRAM DAS Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 22-Sep-2025 18:44:45 17. Here it is pointed out by Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the Plaintiff that though the age of Doli Parida as per his voter ID card was 84 years but his age was mentioned as 76 years in the sale deed. Taking into consideration the age of the executant as 84 years it is normal on his part to be not in a state of fit mind to execute the sale deed. In answer to this, it is clarified here that such an submission put forth on behalf of the Plaintiff is not only having lesser probability but also unsupported by specific evidence. It is not that the voter ID card of a person is conclusive proof of his age. In the contrary, the age mentioned in the sale deed can be considered as an declaration on the part of the executant who has signed on the same. In absence of any reliable rebuttal evidence to dispute the age of the executant against his admission made in a registered document, the age mentioned in the document remains binding to accept the same as such. 18. The allegation of fraud and misrepresentation on the part of Doli Parida to execute Ext.A as alleged by the Plaintiff has not been substantially proved through materials. Doli Parida was undisputedly a man born and brought up in the same locality, and besides the suit schedule-B land, he had purchased other lands also as admitted by the parties. Therefore it is not that Doli Parida did not know about the RFA No.90 of 2008 Page 15 of 22 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGRAM DAS Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 22-Sep-2025 18:44:45 difference in the office of the Block Development Officer and Sub- Registrar office. None of the witnesses have stated in that respect that at the time of registration of Ext.A he was misrepresented to sign on the stamp paper on the understanding that he is applying for loan in the office of Block Development Officer, nor any such material to substantiate such allegation of the Plaintiff has been produced on record. Therefore such stand taken on behalf of the Plaintiff to substantiate the ground of fraud is failed. The burden is on the Plaintiff to prove the factum of fraud committed on Doli Parida as alleged by him. Here in the instant case the Plaintiff is not able to discharge the burden on his part. The Trial Court though has stated that the Plaintiff has failed on this aspect to justify his ground of fraud against Defendants but has stated that fraud has been committed on Doli Parida since the document was not read over and explained to him in presence of the Sub-Registrar and the true age of Defendant No.3 as one of the purchaser was concealed. In the opinion of this Court such grounds stated by the Trial Court to describe fraud committed by Defendant Nos. 2 & 3 is insufficient to declare the document void. Moreover the statement of D.W.2 with regard to non reading of the document in presence of the Sub-Registrar cannot be completely believed since the sole statement of D.W.2 is not RFA No.90 of 2008 Page 16 of 22 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGRAM DAS Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 22-Sep-2025 18:44:45 supported by the statements of other witnesses like D.W.3- the deed writer, and D.W.5. Said statement of D.W.2 is of less probative value because the execution of the document before the Sub-Registrar remains undisputed and the presumptive value of such registered instrument cannot be so easily brushed aside. 19. In relation to the finding of the Trial Court that no consideration amount was passed for execution of the sale deed, the learned Trial Court has analyzed upon the evidence of Defendant No.2 (D.W.5). According to his finding, Defendant No.3 was a minor without having income on the date of execution of the sale deed and Defendant No.2 did not have that financial affluency to pay the consideration amount. It is true that as per the statement of D.W.6, who is the father of Defendant Nos. 2 & 3, Defendant No.3 was a minor on 24th October 2000 and therefore, it can be safely concluded that he did not have any income in absence of specific materials in that respect. Defendant No.2 has admitted in his evidence that he was having income of Rs.800-1000/- per month and he married in the year 1995-96 and was having three children on the date of execution of Ext.A. At the same time, as per the evidence of D.W.6 (who is father of Defendants No. 2 & 3) he was living along with Defendants No.2 & 3 in the year 2000 RFA No.90 of 2008 Page 17 of 22 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGRAM DAS Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 22-Sep-2025 18:44:45 in one mess. According to D.W.5 he was aged about 33 years in the year 2000 and his income was Rs.800-to 1000/- per month. It is stated by the Plaintiff that all the parties including Doli Parida were in joint mess till death of Doli Parida in the year 2001. It is admitted on the part of the Plaintiff that he was serving as a salesman in a Cooperative store at Tarikunda, a place away from their village. On the contrary, it is the case of the Defendants including Defendant No.4 that both sons of Doli Parida were residing separately in separate mess, and Doli Parida who was living along with his wife separately was not properly attended by his sons. There is no material or evidence produced by the Plaintiff to show that all the parties were in common mess where D.W.6, the elder brother of the Plaintiff has denied about joint-ness of family. According to the Defendants, 10 to 12 years prior to the execution of the sale deed under Ext.A all were residing in separate mess and therefore the legal necessity arose on the part of Doli Parida to sale the land in order to meet his expenses towards medicine, wife’s treatment and repayment of loan incurred for daughters’ marriage. Such legal necessity recited in the sale deed under Ext.A has not been sufficiently rebutted by the Plaintiff to substantiate his contention denying the same. It is not that someone earning Rs.800- 1000/- per month would be always incapable to pay Rs.26,400/-. When RFA No.90 of 2008 Page 18 of 22 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGRAM DAS Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 22-Sep-2025 18:44:45 Defendant No.2 was admittedly residing with his father in one mess and his father had separate income also, it would be inappropriate to presume that Defendant No.2 did not have the capacity to pay Rs.26,400/- towards consideration money to purchase a land. What is stated in the recitals of sale deed that Rs.5,000/- was paid prior to the date of sale and Rs.21,400/- was paid on the date of sale, implies that the consideration money was paid in installments and therefore there cannot be any contradiction brought between the statements of Defendant No.2 and the recitals of the sale deed. When it is stated by the Defendant that he paid the consideration money in parts, first Rs.5,000/- and then Rs.21,400/-, the conclusion derived by the Trial Court that the same stands contrary to the recitals of the sale deed regarding payment of consideration money in installments, is seen to be an error committed by the Trial Court. 20. The Trial Court appears to have ignored an important fact that undisputedly the stamp papers used in execution in the sale deed were purchased by Doli Parida himself. This fact is never disputed by the Plaintiff. When admittedly the sale deed was executed before the registering authority on due stamp papers purchased by the vendor and the same is challenged after death of the vendor, strong rebuttal RFA No.90 of 2008 Page 19 of 22 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGRAM DAS Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 22-Sep-2025 18:44:45 evidence needs to be produced on record to disbelieve valid execution of the sale. The finding of the Trial Court that no consideration amount was passed in favour of the vendor for the reason that Defendant No.2 did not have sufficient income to pay the consideration amount is not found supported with sufficient material evidence. In the opinion of this Court, the Trial Court did not consider the entire income of the family of Defendant No.4 who were in common mess along with Defendants No. 2 & 3. Only for the reason that Defendant No. 2 had meager income of Rs.800-1000/- per month during the time of execution of the sale deed, it is not sufficient to conclude that he is unable to pay the consideration amount for sale. The Trial Court has not given any finding on the aspect of alleged fraud that the signature of Doli Parida was taken on misrepresentation, i.e. in the guise of applying for Indira Abas house. Only for the reason that D.W.2 has said that the contents of the document was not read over and explained to Doli Parida before the Sub-Registrar, contrary to the evidence of D.W.3 & 5, it is not sufficient to opine that the document was executed by playing fraud. 21. At this stage it is submitted by Mr. Mishra that when Doli Parida was an illerate person, who only knows to put his signature, the RFA No.90 of 2008 Page 20 of 22 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGRAM DAS Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 22-Sep-2025 18:44:45 burden shifts on the beneficiary to establish the fact of valid execution and passing of consideration money. It needs to be answered here it is not the case of the Plaintiff that either of the purchasers or even their father were educated and in a position of advantage to dominate the seller. Alike Doli Parida, Defendants No. 2, 3 and 4 are also uneducated and depending on cultivation to maintain their livelihood unlike the Plaintiff who was a service holder in a cooperative store. Therefore the totality of circumstances on the backdrop of the evidences of the parties and the materials brought on record, it would be incorrect to conclude that the sale deed was executed without passing of the consideration money and by playing fraud/ misrepresentation on the vendor. It is true that the vendor is the grandfather of the purchasers. But this cannot be a ground to be taken against the purchasers that they have managed to get the sale of land in their favour by influencing the vendor or practicing fraud on him without paying the consideration money. The legal necessities of the vendor as described in the sale deed are not established as non- existent through cogent evidence. The preponderance of the evidences including the fact of admitted signature of Dolagobinda Parida on the sale deed, the stamp papers purchased by him and registration of the same being presented before the Registering Authority, is found much RFA No.90 of 2008 Page 21 of 22 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGRAM DAS Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 22-Sep-2025 18:44:45 heavier in favour of Defendants No. 2 & 3 against the evidences adduced by the Plaintiff. Therefore the finding of the Trial Court to set aside the sale deed for including suit schedule-B properties for partition with equal share of the Plaintiff on the same, as per the impugned judgment, needs to be interfered with. 22. It is accordingly directed that the impugned judgment in respect of suit schedule-B properties covered in the sale deed under Ext.A is excluded from the partition as the exclusive property of Defendants No. 2 & 3.
Arguments
8. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Appellant while challenging such finding of learned Trial Court submits that admittedly suit schedule-B property is the self-acquired property of Dolagobinda Parida and he according to the recitals of the sale deed executed the sale deed voluntarily and the findings of the Trial Court with regard to legal necessity on the part of the executor and passing of sale consideration money from the purchaser are not supported by sufficient material to treat the sale deed void. The chosen sentences of the witnesses used by the Trial Court to support Plaintiff’s case are wrong appreciation on the part of the learned Trial judge. By taking this Court to the evidence of the Plaintiff, Defendant Nos. 2, 4 and other witnesses, Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel, tries to convince that the facts and statements of evidences of the witnesses do justify the case of Defendant Nos. 2 & 3 to show that the sale deed under Ext-A has been validly executed. 9. Conversely, it is submitted by Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the Plaintiff (present Respondent No.1) that when evidence has been brought through the witnesses that there was jointness in the family, RFA No.90 of 2008 Page 6 of 22 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGRAM DAS Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 22-Sep-2025 18:44:45 the question of legal necessity on the part of Dolagobinda Parida for personal causes is not at all a fact existed to execute the sale deed by him. Mr. Mishra contends that when separation of all the parties from jointness of the properties and family is not pleaded by the Defendants, the question of legal necessity on the part of the executant alone to sale the land does not arise. It is also submitted that Defendant Nos. 2 & 3 were not that affluent at the time of execution of the sale deed to pay the consideration amount since one of the purchaser was a minor at that time and the other purchaser had very scanty income to maintain his livelihood with three children. Therefore, the finding of the Trial Court in this regard that Defendants No. 2 & 3 were not financially capable to pay the consideration amount is completely justified on the basis of the statements of the witnesses made in course of their evidences. 10. As stated earlier, the challenge to the impugned judgment and decree is in respect of the execution of sale deed dated 24th October 2000 (Ext.A) covering suit schedule-B properties. The extent of land covered under suit schedule-B property is measuring Ac.0.48 decimals, agricultural land in nature. It is true that no dispute with regard to partition of the properties covered under suit schedule-A is RFA No.90 of 2008 Page 7 of 22 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGRAM DAS Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 22-Sep-2025 18:44:45 questioned by either party. Since the challenge is in respect of declaring the sale deed is void and invalid to treat the same as a sham transaction on the ground of misrepresentation and fraud played by Defendants No. 2 & 3, as per the allegations of the Plaintiff made in the plaint, undoubtedly the burden comes on the Plaintiff to prove his contentions that execution of Ext-A is null and void based on fraud and misrepresentation. Sections 101 to 111 of the Evidence Act enumerate the principles of burden of proof. At the beginning, section 101 requires the plaintiff to initially discharge the burden to prove the facts exist in his favour as per his contentions. In Anil Rishi vs- Gurbaksh Singh, (2006) 5 SCC 558, the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held that; “19. There is another aspect of the matter which should be borne in mind. A distinction exists between burden of proof and onus of proof. The right to begin follows onus probandi. It assumes importance in the early stage of a case. The question of onus of proof has greater force, where the question is, which party is to begin. Burden of proof is used in three ways: (i) to indicate the duty of bringing forward evidence in support of a proposition at the beginning or later; (ii) to make that of establishing a proposition as against all counter-evidence; and (iii) an indiscriminate use in which it may mean either or both of the others. The elementary rule in Section 101 is inflexible. In terms of Section 102 the initial onus is RFA No.90 of 2008 Page 8 of 22 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGRAM DAS Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 22-Sep-2025 18:44:45 always on the plaintiff and if he discharges that onus and makes out a case which entitles him to a relief, the onus shifts to the defendant to prove those circumstances, if any, which would disentitle the plaintiff to the same.” 11. In the case at hand, the Plaintiff has examined five witnesses including himself as P.W.4. It is admitted on the part of the Plaintiff that he was serving as a salesman earlier in “Jana Kalyan Bhandar”, a Cooperative Society, and he dropped his study in the year 1965-66 from Class-IX. So according to his statement Plaintiff has read up to Class-IX and served for some years as a salesman. At the same time, it is admitted by the Plaintiff that his brother, Defendant No.4 has read up to “Chatshali” (primary education up to Class-3). Dolagobinda Parida died on 17th November 2001 and the sale deed under Ext-A was executed on 24th October 2000. It is further admitted that Defendant Nos. 2 & 3 being the sons of Defendant No.4 became the grandsons of Dolagobinda. Thus, it is admitted by the parties that Dolagobinda executed the sale deed under Ext-A in favour of his grandsons prior to one year of his death. 12. As seen from the evidence of P.W.4 and D.W.6, who are the sons of Dolagobinda, it is admitted that before 2-3 years of death of Dolagobinda he remained ill, though no specific cause of ill or state of RFA No.90 of 2008 Page 9 of 22 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGRAM DAS Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 22-Sep-2025 18:44:45 illness of Dolagobinda has been brought on record. Nothing has been brought on record with regard to the fact whether his illness was mental, physical or both. But as seen from the narration of events that in the year 2000 particularly on the date of execution of the sale deed, Dolagobinda was not that much ill unable to move outside from his house or unable to understand things generally. 13. When a challenge is levelled to a particular document, which is a registered instrument, it is presumed that the transaction is genuine. In Rattan Singh v. Nirmal Gill, (2021) 15 SCC 300, it has been observed as follows; “33. To appreciate the findings arrived at by the courts below, we must first see on whom the onus of proof lies. The record reveals that the disputed documents are registered. We are, therefore, guided by the settled legal principle that a document is presumed to be genuine if the same is registered, as held by this Court in Prem Singh v. Birbal [Prem Singh v. Birbal, (2006) 5 SCC 353] . The relevant portion of the said decision reads as below : (SCC pp. 360-61, para 27) “27. There is a presumption that a registered document is validly executed. A registered document,
Decision
23. The appeal is disposed of as allowed. Judge ( B.P. Routray) S.Das, Sr.Steno RFA No.90 of 2008 Page 22 of 22