Key Legal Principles for Challenging Registered and Unregistered Documents in Court

Key Legal Principles for Challenging Registered and Unregistered Documents in Court

Understanding the Burden of Proof in Registered vs. Unregistered Documents: Legal Insights

  • Legal Analysis and Key Points:

  • 1. Non-uniform Standard of Evidence:

      The standard of evidence required to challenge registered documents differs from that for unregistered documents. Registered documents, being public records, carry a higher presumption of authenticity and legality.

    2. Burden of Proof:

       Articles 117 to 122 of the Q.S.O. delineate principles governing the burden of proof.

       Article 117: The burden of proof lies on the person who asserts a fact.

       Article 118: Initially, the burden is on the plaintiff to make out a case; if successful, it shifts to the defendant.

       Article 119: The burden of proof for a particular fact lies on the person who wants the court to believe it.

       Article 121: Application of the general rule in Article 119.

       Article 122: When a fact is peculiarly within the knowledge of a party, the burden to prove it lies on that party.

    3. Legal vs. Evidential Burden:

       Legal Burden: Remains constant throughout the trial and is based on legal pleadings.

      Evidential Burden: Shifts as evidence is presented by parties. Initially, the plaintiff must provide sufficient evidence to establish a presumption in their favor, shifting the evidential burden to the defendant.

    4. Standard of Evidence and Registration:

    Registered documents enjoy a presumption of authenticity and correctness under Articles 85(5) and 129(e) of the Q.S.O.

    Mere denial by the executant of a registered document is inadequate to shift the burden onto the beneficiary. 

    In contrast, unregistered documents lack the same level of credibility and are more susceptible to challenges regarding their authenticity.

    5. High Court's Error:

       - The High Court's impugned judgment misinterpreted the burden of proof for registered documents by suggesting that the presumption of genuineness is easily rebutted by mere challenge, which is incorrect.

    6. Minors and Guardianship:

       Under section 11 of the Contract Act 1872, contracts made by minors are void.

       A de facto guardian of a minor has no authority to transfer the minor’s immovable property, and such transfers are void under Muslim Law.

    7. Witness Requirement:

       - For financial obligations involving sale deeds, attestation by two witnesses is mandatory as per sub-Article 2(a) of Article 17 of the Q.S.O.

       - These documents cannot be used as evidence without the attesting witnesses' testimony in court under Article 79 of the Q.S.O.

    Conclusion:

    The legal principles surrounding the burden of proof are nuanced and vary based on the nature of the document (registered vs. unregistered). Registered documents benefit from a higher presumption of authenticity, requiring more substantial evidence to challenge their validity. The High Court's decision to shift the burden based on mere denial by the executant of a registered document misapplied these principles, highlighting the importance of correctly interpreting the burden of proof within the framework of the Q.S.O.

    Post a Comment

    Previous Post Next Post

    Contact Form