Ali Hussain (D) Thr. LRs. v. Rabiya
Background
Rabiya sued to cancel a sale deed and an underlying power of attorney, claiming the power of attorney bearing her name was forged and used to sell her inherited land without her knowledge. The trial court and the first appellate court both dismissed her suit after finding against her on the facts. The High Court of Uttarakhand, in second appeal, reversed this and sent the case back for a fresh trial, holding that since Rabiya was allegedly an illiterate "pardanasheen" (veiled/secluded) woman, the burden of proving the power of attorney genuine should have fallen on the defendants, not on her.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that the High Court's entire basis for shifting the burden of proof, that Rabiya was a pardanasheen illiterate lady entitled to special protection, had no foundation in her own pleadings; nowhere in her plaint had she claimed this status. Since two courts had already concurrently found against her on the facts, and the High Court's reasoning rested on a claim never actually made in the case, the Supreme Court found the High Court committed a "manifest apparent error" in overturning those concurrent findings and ordering a retrial. The appeal was allowed, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the dismissal of Rabiya's suit was effectively restored, with no order as to costs.
Lesson Learnt
A court cannot invent a special legal status (like "pardanasheen" protection) or shift the burden of proof onto one side based on a fact that was never actually pleaded in the case: relief and reasoning must be tied to what the parties themselves put on record.