T c: ^ (PlaintifE) .,.-••-e^l^ ^y^ l^fl^ . ^fl* IN THE HI6H C0URT OF JUDICATURE At BIL^iSPUR Writ PetifiOT (Art.ZZr') Nd. 1 '72-S pf 2008 PETITIQNER /^nushfha Builders and Colonizers Private Limited, Junwdni Khamariya Road, JUnwahi, a registered compQny incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1956, having registration number bU 04520 CT 2005 P.T.C. 17505 (Swalior, Tehsil <& District Durg, through the Director Raghevendra Das : yaishav, son of Late Narendrd Das, agey about 42 years, resident 6f Junwani Khamdriya Road, Junwani, Tehsit & District: Durg, Chhatisgarh. Vs. ft^SPiyNbENTS '(Defendants) •^QdaM/^, ^ <vt '•/^I ^s^y ''1. Smt. P. Laxmi Kanthamma, widow of Late P. Krishna Murthy, Aged about 65 years, Occupation: Agriculture, resident of Mouza Kohka, Ptot No.40/A, Road No.7, Smriti Nagar, Bhilai, Tehsil & District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ^-2. State of Chhattisgarh, through The Collector, C>urg, Tehsil & District: Durg, Chhattisgarh. , ? ^ :-'^'^^^^ss^^t ..^'^:^?"?:^^^%»^^N WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF tHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. mGILCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BIIA8PUR WRITPEnTION (Art. 2271 N0. 1729 OF2008 PBTntQf^S, (Pkdnt^) Anushtha Builders and Colonizcrs Pnvate Limited. VBKSOS RESPOMaBWTS (Defendcazts) Smt. P. Laxmi Kanthamma and anofher. ORDER ^ P<^TON»%MARCH. 2008 Sd/- DhirendraMishra '°" .ludge HIGH COURT OFCHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (Art. 2271 N0. 1729 OF 2008 Present: Shri R^eev Shrivastava, counsel for the petitioner. Shri. B.P. Sharma, counsel for respondent No. 1. Shri Rajendra Agrawal, P.L. for fhe State/respondent No. 2. ORDBR (Passcd on.Z'Alarch 2008) Dhirendra MIshra, J With fhe consent of fhe parties, fhe matter was heard finally. By fhis petition the petitioner has nnpugned the order dated 12U1 March 2008 (Annexure P/l) passed in CivU Suit No.ll-A/07 whereby tfae learned DC Additional District Judge, PBTniOJSBR Anushtha BuUdeis and Colonlzers Private Lmiitect, Junwani Khamariya Road, Ji-inwam, a registered company iiicoi-porated uiider Uie pro\'isions of the Indian Companies Act, 1956, havin^ rcgistration numbcr DU 04520 CT 2005 P.T.C. 17505 Gwalior, TehsU & Disti'ict Durg, ttu'ough the Du-ector Raghevendra Das Vaishav, son of Late Narendra Das, aged about '12 years, resident of Junwanl Kham.ariya Road, Junwani, TehsU & District Diirg, C.hhattisgarh. IPUmitiJf) VERSOS R^PQNPBI 1. Smt. P. Laxmi Kantham.ma, widow of T^ate P. Krishna Murfhy, Aged about 65 years, Occupation : Agriculture, resident of Mouza Kohka, Plot No.-10/A, Road No. 7, Smnti Nagar, BhUai, TehsU & District Durg, Chhattisgarh. (Defend.antsj 2. State of Ctohattis^rh, fhrough the Collector, Dui^, Tehsil & District Durg, Cbhattisgarh. ^rfiiB. ^ i»ns«sia» .i^^,®,. -^ .? /'' ^ •1- '%tl yK'WS^S. 'W—Qy •J-i. '<(y</' \\\ ^w.. (FTC), Dui^ has rejected the application under Order 18 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the petitioner. 2. BrieUy stated the facts necessary for the piirpose of ttus petition are that fhe petitioner filed a civU. suit for speci&c performance of the contract with the avennent that fhe petitioner and fhe respondent No. 1 entered into an agreement for sale of fhe sult property, owned by the respondent No. 1, at the rate of Rs. 12.98 lacs per acre and a sum of Rs. 15 lacs was received bv the respondent No. 1 bv wav of advance. When the respondent No. 1 faUed to execute fhe sale deed withm the time stipulated in fhe agreenient, fhe petitioner afber serving notice on the respondent No. 1, filed a civll suit for speciBc performance offhe contract. 3. The respondent No. 1 contested the siiit msdnly on fhe groiuid that the agreement, sought to be executed, is an agreement for sale wifh the stipulation of deliveiy of possession and therefore, the same is Ulegal and void. 4. The petitioner moved an appllcation under Order 18 Rule 1 of the CPC mentioning therein that since the respondent No. 1 has accepted execution of the agreement and denled its contents and resisted the effect of fhe agreement on the legal ground fhat the sam.e is unregistered, therefore, the burden of proof is on fhe respondent No. 1 and accordtngly, the respondent No. 1 should be directed to begin her evidence. 5. The trial Court rejected the above prayer of fhe petitioner with an observation fhat the burden of proving aU the issues framed on the basis of pleadings of the respective parties, is on the plaintiff/petitioner and if he fails to discharge his biirden, the suit will fafl and fherefore, the plaintiff/petitioner has to lead evidence fiirst. 6. Leamed counsel for the petitioner referring to Order 18 Rule 1 of CPC argues that where the defendant admits the facts ^-^ •^i,*.-^ iit»if^y..,4,^^;^^SSa£tg%^?°^i^' ^WsSSSS^ 's*^ •y,"^ ^ fcsSKa. 1 -.^/ aUeged by fhe plaintiff and resist the claim. of fhe plaintiff either in point of law or on some additional facts alleged by fhe defendant, fhe plamtiff is not entitled to any part of the relief which he seeks and in such cases, the defendant has the right to begm. Since the execution of the agreement has not been disputed by the defendant and the suit is resisted on the legal grounds that fhe agreement for sale coupled with delivery of possession, is unreeistered, (herefore, it is com.pulsorily liable to be registered under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908. The burden lies on fhe defendant to establish that fhe petitioner/platntiff" is not entitled for a decree of Specific performance of fhe contract on the basis of admltted agreeinent. 7. On fhe other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 tn his retum has referred to fhe issues fraiaed ty the trial Court (Annexure R-1/1) and contended fhat the burden of proving issues No. 1 to 5 lles on fhe plaintiff hlmself as fhe defendant has denied the payment of Rs. 15 lacs. He has also disputed fhe readiness and wilUngness on the part of the plaintiffto perfonn hls part offhe contractual obligation. Unless the above issues are decided in favour of fhe plaintiflF, the suit cannot be decreed. 8. Reliance is placed on t.he jiidgment. in the matter of Anil Rishi Vs. GurbaJcsh Singh^. 9. I have heard leamed counsel for both the parties and perused fhe material available on record including the impugned order. 10. The trial Court on fhe basis of pleadings of fhe respective parties, has framed the issues as under: 1. WT cirft ^f siRtcii.SI <? 1 g?r vm-aj^ss'1. vs.^. 14 RWT gi? -^i WS ^. 2026, ^Sisn 6.67 t Wl v^ •SIW ^. 2027 .4 ^ffitT m? •SWKH cF? f^!T ijOT ^ 1S.OO.OOO/- IRH I^ITI & ? » y j "'^^^' ^w.. 2. 3. 5. 6. 7. 8. TOT qr^t qw 'gRffRr <}pr ^cr qR TR>H A THET Tt PtftiRd t.pT •^K! f^Ticf; 13.4.05 g>T ^leFT ap^ STCTI (l?r? aN ^07 t? OTT TS^Rtf^ cgTIR) 1 cTRiTRT 1}ft ^4 iRRFr cfi TOET •tt p|isl<lRt1 'RreiT ^fSRT f^ricf; 13.4.05 ^t 5Rff WI t(Rf.T afSFt Tt Qqwf '%T t? TOT cll^t c||c{tl-W ijpr ^R c|Ki)+ri TRiH c^ •<ffgE[ ^ p|t*<lRcl ^iyy TffiRT R»!i|S>r1 13.4.05 3?( ))l?|c||<f| ^. 1 'A NSre ITCR ^;r in^ y>\ aitor&t? OTT ii(?|cll<{l %1 c[R upft-T ^g- TfcppT ^ <ff"f srtteEft ^ Trra 1? il 'Sfi^ ^! WtWiA t? gqr cn^t }jRicii<S1 cp.i ^ ^FSS wpfr ^Ensfr iff?r c[?t 3f|6R>i^' t? OTT cll'ttl'W ijft 7? dl'iy'W tWKFi ^> VSei 4 pl»)tRt1 fSWT ^jRRT ^w 13.4.0S aAr cr ^i t? T^SI CTK -api ? From perusal ofthe issues, it is clear that issue No. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7 are the substantive issues for tfae decision ofthe sult 11. Part-III of the Evidence Act deals with production and effect of evidence. Sections 101 & 102 of the Evidence Act are reproduced as under:- " 101. Burden of proof. - WhoevRr desires any Coiirt to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on fhe existence of facts which he asserts, inust prove that fhose facts exist. When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is sald that the burden of proof lies on that person. 102. On whoni burden of proof Ues. - The biirden of proof in a suit or proceedtng lies on fhat person who would fail if no evidence at all were gwen on eifher side." 12. In fhe m.atter of Antt. RisW the HonTole Supreme Court whUe dealing wifh the distinction between burden of proof and onus of proof, has held fhus: 0>Kr-f' -sss^:.^'-' ^ ^.- 19. There is another aspect of fhe matter which should be bome in mind. A distinction exists between burden of proof and onus of proof. The right to begin follows onus probandL It assuiaes importance in fhe 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 m three ways: (^ to indicate fhe duty of bnnging forivard evidence in support of a proposition at fhe begirming or later; (ii) to niake that of establlshing a proposition as ^ainst aU counter- evldence; and (u^ an uidiscriinmate use in wl-uch it may mean eifher or bofh of the ofhers. The elementary rule in Section 101 is inHexlble. In terms of Section 102 the initial onus is alwavs on fhe plaintiff and if he dischai^es that onus and inakes out a case which entifles him to a reUef, the onus shlfts to fhe defendant to prove those cu'ciimstances, tf any which would disentitle the plaintifi' to the same. 20. In R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder V. Arulrmgu Viswesaraswcum & V.P. Temple2 the law is stated in the foUowmg terms: (SCC p. 768, para 29) "29. In a suit for recovery of possession based on title it is for fhe plauitiff to prove hls tiUe and satisfy the court that he, m law, is entitled to dispossess fhe defendant from. his possession over the sult property and for fhe possession to be restored to liim. However, as held m. Addagada Raghavccmma V. Addagada Chenchaffuna3 there is an essential distinction between burden of proof and onus of proof: burden of proof lles upon a person who has to prove fhe fact and which never shifts. Onus of proof shifts. Such a shiftmg of onus 1s a continuous process in the evaluation of evidence. In our opinion, tn a suit for possession based on title once the plaintifi' has been able to create a high degree of probability so as to shtft fhe onus on fhe defendant it is for the defendant to discharge his onus and in the absence thereof the burden of proof lying on tlie plaintifi" shall be held to have been dischargedso as to amount to proof of fhe plaintitfs title." 2.. (2003) 8 SCC 752 ; JT (2004) 6 8C 442 3. (1964) 2 SCC 933 : AJR 1964 8C {36 .X <^ ,^!^ •passiuisip 'A[8utpJ033B si pue psssimsip sq o^ ssAisssp 1.1 's-tuaia AUB •^noiR.iA si uoppsd sqj, •Bipui jo uopn^suoQ sq^ jo /,gg appjy JSpun sousjspa'i.Tii SVIBJJBA iioTqA 'sSpnp ^oui.sia iBUoi^ippv psujea^ sqi Aq psnTumxoo JQJJS ^Buoi-pipsunf JQ Ai.iiajgm -io AjiiBgsni ou si sjsi^ 'i]ns3j 9tp ui •QT: •ABIjo ss^dpuud pSinSS 3VQ lp.IA\ SOUBpJOOOB UI 10U SI 'tSJt): 33U3pIA3 SlJIpB3I AI uiSaq 01 i -ON iirepu3j3p/rojs[ ^uspuodsgj 9Lp ps^oajip 3ABq ppioqs Aopq ijnoo sip tBtp jsuoprtsd si.p jo uoiiua^uoa 3T.P. 'saauB^sicinsjio qons ui 'g ^ T; '0^ ssnssi sip. qsnq%).s9 01 jgiyireid/jauop.Ti.sd aq^. uo S3i{ snuo {BRTUI atp. souig •t»T •yxcB]<3. arp ui p9inre{3 j3i[9J sqi. o^^T).ureid 3Lp ssi^iiussTp qoiqA 'saorreisiano.ip jaipo aqi aAojd o^ ^ •ON ^.UBpuajsp srp uo 'yiqs ppiOA snuo sqi 'uspjnq aAoqa sx-p ssSjeqosip sq aouQ •yireid STq ui psmrep jsnai ^ o^ mrq sap.iius 1.1 'aseo B ^no s33[Bia pue snuo aAoqa sip ssgjBqosip sq ji ApiQ %^ureid sqi uo sABAp si snuo TBnTUI SB jgnureid/jauori^Rad SLR uo SSTI 'SOOZ"t'"EI ps^P luataaajS^ -)OBJ}.UOO 3^ jo ijed siq I-P.IA ^draoo 01 8uT[iiA pire ApBaj SABM[B SBM 9I[ 'j.'Bq^. iasnoq ITCIS sqi jo 3]BS jo uoTf&iapisuoo spjBAO^ SOB{ Ql'sg pred jjo.uiBid/jsuoT^p.ad sq). ^Bqi. ;IOBJ^UOO siqBso.iojus AH^ai B ST ssiiJBd aq^ ussA^aq aies o^ tuamaaigB 3ip fBVf^ SuiAojd jo uapjnq 'jsuBm "tUKtsm 3i(t ui •gi ^ 5: .•sfaf'^^ <f£'~"i