Illiterate plaintiff fails to establish fraud or misrepresentation in registered sale deed, burden of proof remains unshifted.
In a significant judgment delivered by the Circuit Bench at Port Blair of the Calcutta High Court, Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts, dismissing the appeal filed by Shri K. Subramani against Shri G. Arul Anand concerning allegations of fraud and misrepresentation in a registered sale deed. The case revolved around the purported sale of land in the Andaman & Nicobar Islands by the appellant's mother, Smti. K. Muniamma, who claimed that the deed was fraudulently represented as a Power of Attorney.
The judgment, dated March 23, 2026, confirmed the decisions of both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, which had placed the initial burden of proof on the plaintiff to establish claims of fraud and misrepresentation. The High Court concurred with the lower courts, stating that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate any fiduciary relationship or active confidence between her and the defendant, which would have shifted the burden of proof to the latter.
Central to the dispute was the execution of a deed on April 15, 1991, which Muniamma, an illiterate lady, contended was presented to her as a Power of Attorney rather than a sale deed. The defendant, a government employee, allegedly persuaded Muniamma to sell her land and assisted in its registration. The plaintiff claimed that alterations were made to the deed without her knowledge, including changes in the land area and the consideration amount.
However, the court found no evidence of fiduciary or active confidence between the parties that could have shifted the burden of proof under Section 111 of the Indian Evidence Act. The judgment also noted the proper procedure followed during registration, as evidenced by a clerk from the Sub-Registrar's office, who confirmed that the contents of the deed were read over and explained to Muniamma.
Justice Das, in her detailed analysis, emphasized that the burden of proof lies on the party alleging fraud unless a fiduciary relationship is established. She remarked, "The appellant may be an illiterate lady, but she failed to prove any fiduciary relation with the respondent or that he was a person of her active confidence."
The appellant's attempt to challenge the deed's validity was further weakened by the absence of testimony from attesting witnesses or Muniamma's husband, who was also involved in the transaction. The judgment also took into account the absence of any physical or mental incapacity evidence that could influence the transaction's legitimacy.
The case underscores the importance of establishing a fiduciary relationship or active confidence when alleging fraud in property transactions, especially involving illiterate individuals. It also reaffirms the principle that the burden of proof remains with the plaintiff unless specific conditions are met to shift it.
The dismissal of the appeal serves as a reminder of the stringent standards required to prove fraud in civil litigation, particularly in property disputes. The judgment is expected to have implications for similar cases, reinforcing the necessity for clear and convincing evidence when asserting claims of fraud or misrepresentation.
Bottom Line:
Burden of proof in case of alleged fraud and misrepresentation in sale deeds - Where an illiterate person alleges fraud or misrepresentation, the initial burden of proof lies upon them unless they can establish fiduciary or active confidence relationship with the opposing party.
Statutory provision(s): Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Section 111, Registration Act, 1908 Section 58, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Section 100.
