Onus of Proof - The Legal Chamber

In this judgment, the Supreme Court held that attachment before judgment under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC cannot apply to property transferred prior to a suit, as the remedy for challenging such a transfer lies exclusively under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act. It clarified that claim proceedings cannot substitute a substantive inquiry into fraudulent transfers. Facts Of The Case: The dispute originated from a sale agreement dated May 10, 2002, between the original appellant, L.K. Prabhu, and the third defendant, V. Ramananda Prabhu, who acknowledged a liability of ₹17.25 lakhs. It was stipulated that upon default, the defendant would convey 5.100 cents of property with a building for ₹35 lakhs. On June 28, 2004, following further payments, a registered sale de...

The Supreme Court held that the plaintiff failed to prove the existence of a valid sale agreement, a prerequisite for specific performance under Man Kaur v. Hartar Singh Sangha. The burden of proof was not discharged as the sole evidence was self-serving and key witnesses were not examined. The High Court's reversal of concurrent factual findings was erroneous. Facts Of The Case: The respondents (original plaintiffs) filed a suit for specific performance of an alleged sale agreement dated 12.02.1999, claiming the appellant (defendant) had agreed to sell his house for Rs. 70,000. They asserted having paid Rs. 55,000 as advance and taken possession, subsequently renting the property back to the appellant. The appellant contested the suit, denying any agreement to sell. His defense was that...

Tag: Onus of Proof

Can a Creditor Attach Property Already Sold? Supreme Court Clarifies the Law

Supreme Court Rules on Loan Disguised as Property Deal, Protects Homeowner from Forced Sale