LAW FOR ALL

Evidence Act, 1872: ss. 101 and 102-Burden of proof-Suit for declaring sale deed as void-Forgery and fabrication of document alleged-Held, with a view to prove forgery or fabrication in a document, possession of the same by defendant would not change legal position-Initial burden of proof would be on plaintiff-The fact that defendant was in a dominant position must be proved by plaintiff at the first instance. Evidence-Burden of proof and onus of proof-Distinction between-Explained. Words and Phrases: Expressions `burden of proof' and `onus of proof'-Connotation of in the context of Evidence Act. Suit-Framing of issues-Practice and Procedure. Pursuant to an agreement of sale between respondent and appellant, a sale deed was executed on 26.3.1991. Later, the respondent filed a suit for declaration that the said sale deed was void as the same was forged and fabricated. The defendant-appellant denied the allegations. On pleadings of the parties the trial court framed the following issue: "Whether the sale deed dated 26.3.1991 is forged and fabricated as prayed for?" On an application by the plaintiff, the trial court observed that onus to prove an issue was to be discharged in affirmative and it would always be difficult to prove the same in negative, and reframed the issue as under: "Whether the alleged sale deed dated 26.3.1991 is a valid and genuine document?" The revision application of the defendant was dismissed by the High Court observing that defendant was in a dominant position to prove the document affirmatively. Aggrieved, the defendant filed the present appeal. Citation: 2006 AIR 1971,2006(1 )Suppl.SCR659 ,2006(5 )SCC558 ,2006(5 )SCALE153 ,2006(11 )JT521- Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. In view of Section 101 of the Evidence Act, the initial burden of proof would be on the plaintiff. The trial court and the High Court proceeded on the basis that the defendant was in a dominating position and there had been a fiduciary relationship between the parties. The appellant in his written statement denied and disputed the said averments made in the plaint. The fact that the defendant was in a dominant position must be proved by the plaintiff at the first instance. [662-h; 663-b-c; e] Krishna Mohan Kul @ Nani Charan Kul & Anr. v. Pratima Maity & Ors., AIR (2003) SC 4351, distinguished. 1.2. With a view to prove forgery or fabrication in a document, possession of the original sale deed by the defendant would not change the legal position. A party in possession of a document can always be directed to produce the same. The plaintiff could file an application calling for the said document from the defendant and the defendant could have been directed by the Trial Judge to produce the same. [655-d-e] 2. It should be borne in mind that 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 always on the plaintiff and if he discharges that onus and makes out a case which entitled him to a relief, the onus shifts to the defendant to prove those circumstances, if any, which would disentitle the plaintiff to the same. [655-f-h; 666-a] R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P. Temple and Anr., JT (2004) 6 SC 442, relied on. 3. The order reframing the issue is set aside thus reviving the issue originally framed. [666-d] Suresh Kumari and A.P. Mohanty for the Appellant. Shalil Sagar, Pratap Venugopal and E. Venu Kumar for M/s. K.J. John & Co., for the Respondent.