A claimed share in replacement property requires proof that relinquished property proceeds funded its purchase.

The appellant/plaintiff claimed that, after she and certain family members relinquished their shares in the Brahampuri property, ₹23,00,000 received in connection with those shares was retained for the joint purchase of the suit property.

She sought a declaration, partition, possession and injunction, or alternatively recovery of ₹7,66,666.

The defendants maintained that the amount had been divided equally and that the plaintiff had received approximately ₹7,66,700; they denied any agreement to purchase the suit property jointly.

The Trial Court dismissed the suit, finding that the plaintiff had not proved either non-receipt of her share or use of the proceeds to acquire the suit property.

She appealed under Section 96 CPC.

1. Whether the Trial Court erred in placing the burden on the plaintiff to establish that she had not received her alleged share of the ₹23,00,000, despite the defendants’ assertion that they had paid her ₹7,66,700.

2. Whether the plaintiff proved that proceeds connected with the Brahampuri property were retained or used to purchase the suit property, thereby entitling her to the reliefs claimed.

The appeal was brought under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which provides for an appeal from an original decree.

The Court applied the burden of proof reflected in the framed issues, which placed the onus on the plaintiff to prove that the suit property was purchased from the jointly received sale proceeds and, consequently, her entitlement to partition, possession, declaration and injunction.

The Court also treated the signed, unchallenged Relinquishment Deed as relevant evidence and held that the plaintiff had to establish her claim that she neither received her share nor had the relevant proceeds applied to the suit property.

No other statute or precedent was identified as a basis for the decision.

The Court found that the plaintiff’s signature on the Relinquishment Deed was admitted and that she had not challenged the deed.

It also noted that the defendants’ evidence was that she had received her share, while the plaintiff did not call persons present when the deed was executed or the cash was counted to corroborate her denial.

Further, she produced no cogent evidence that the ₹23,00,000, or any part of it, was retained by the defendants or used to purchase the suit property.

The Court therefore found no basis to disturb the Trial Court’s conclusion that the plaintiff had failed to prove the essential factual foundation for her claims.

It dismissed the appeal and upheld dismissal of the suit for declaration, partition, possession, injunction and alternative recovery.

Separately, in the court-fee application, the appellant was granted eight weeks to pay the deficit court fee, failing which it could be recovered as arrears of land revenue.