The High Court at Calcutta (Circuit Bench at Port Blair) has dismissed a second appeal filed by the daughter of an original plaintiff, affirming that being an illiterate lady does not automatically shift the burden of proof to the defendant unless a fiduciary relationship or a position of active confidence is established. Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts, ruling that the appellant failed to demonstrate that the registered sale deed was executed through misrepresentation or fraud.
Background of the Case
The case originated from a suit filed by Smti. K. Muniamma @ Muniammal (the original plaintiff) for declaration of title, injunction, and cancellation of a sale deed dated April 15, 1991. The plaintiff, an illiterate woman, claimed she intended to execute a General Power of Attorney (GPA) in favor of the respondent, G. Arul Anand, a police constable, to help her find a buyer for 200 square meters of her land.
She alleged that the respondent paid her ₹50,000 as an advance but later deceived her by registering a Sale Deed for the entire 300 square meters instead of a GPA. The plaintiff contended she only learned of the “foul play” in 1995 when the respondent began accumulating building materials on the land. Both the Trial Court (Civil Judge, Senior Division) and the First Appellate Court (District Judge, Andaman & Nicobar Islands) dismissed the suit, leading to this second appeal.
Arguments of the Parties
The appellant’s counsel, Mrs. Anjili Nag, argued that since Muniamma was an illiterate lady, the “read over and explained” endorsement was mandatory. She contended that under Section 111 of the Indian Evidence Act, the burden of proof shifted to the respondent to prove the good faith of the transaction because he held a position of “active confidence.” The appellant cited several precedents, including Krishna Mohan Kul alias Nani Charan Kul & Anr. Vs Pratima Maity & Ors. and Amiruddin Ali @ Amiruddin Mondal Vs Kali Bala Bhunia, arguing that an illiterate lady is akin to a Pardanashin lady.
Conversely, the respondent’s counsel, Mr. Prohit Mohan Lall, argued that the respondent had denied the plaintiff’s illiteracy in his written statement. He highlighted the testimony of the Sub-Registrar’s clerk (DW-2), who stated that the contents of the deed were explained to the vendor and that she was asked about the receipt of the consideration money. The respondent maintained that no fiduciary relationship existed between the parties.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Court examined the procedure adopted during registration under Section 58 of the Registration Act. It noted that PW-2 (the clerk) testified that the Sub-Registrar specifically asked the vendor if she had received the consideration amount.
Regarding the burden of proof, the Court observed:
“Apparently excepting the statement of the appellant no other evidence can be found to substantiate that the respondent was in active confidence of the appellant.”
The Court distinguished the present case from the precedents cited by the appellant. It noted that while the law protects illiterate persons, the “initial burden” remains on the person alleging fraud. Justice Chatterjee (Das) remarked:
“This Court fully endorse such observation the appellant may be an illiterate lady but she failed to prove that she had any fiduciary relation with the respondent or he was not a person of her active confidence. She could not give any detailed particulars how any relation of active confidence developed between them.”
The Court also found it significant that the plaintiff’s husband, a government employee who acted as an attesting witness to the deed, was not called to testify. The Court found it “difficult to believe” that he was absolutely illiterate or ignorant of the proceedings.
Decision
The High Court concluded that the lower courts were justified in placing the onus of proof on the plaintiff. The Court held that the appellant failed to prove that the contents of the instrument were not read over and explained to the original plaintiff.
“Hence the law so formulates is considered to that extent that both the Learned court was justified in placing the onus to prove the execution of the deed upon the original plaintiff and not upon the respondent as the appellant failed to prove that the contents were not read over and explained to her though she was an illiterate lady.”
Consequently, the Court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed SA No. 7 of 2025 without any order as to costs.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Shri K. Subramani vs. Shri G. Arul Anand
- Case No.: SA/7/2025
- Bench: Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das)
- Date: March 23, 2026
