RAMKUNWARBAI Vs. RAMCHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the Plaintiff; she had sold a house to the Defendant, by a sale -deed, which she, sought to cancel on the ground of fraud; the lower Courts have, by concurrent judgments, held that it was a valid sale, and there was no fraud, and that the Defendant purchased had acquired good title Usually, the Appellant in second appeal, does not challenge such concurrent judgments, based on findings of facts; here however, it was urged that the facts should be re -investigated as the approach of the lower Courts had been vitiated by their placing the burden of proving fraud on the Plaintiff, though, there were special circumstances, shifting the burden on to the Defendant.

(2.) THE questions raised are, firstly, whether the Plaintiff vendor is a Pardanashin woman, or a person in similar situation, entitled to the special cloak protection from the Courts, shifting on to the person dealing with her, the burden of good faith and absence of fraud, when she alleged that she was influenced and cheated. Secondly, whether the findings of fact have been vitiated by such burden being placed on her, and thirdly whether on assumption that the purchaser had to prove good faith, he had succeeded on the materials produced by him. Finally, though it was taken in the Court, whether the sale is voidable, because the deed was "presented" to the sub -registrar, by a lawyer without a special power for it, in violation of the provisions of Section 32 of the Indian Registration Act.

(3.) IN July of the same year the vendor filed this suit for cancellation, alleging that she had been cheated by one Ramprapanna, a Chela at the Mutt, and there had been no payment of money, and no sale, and no transfer of title.