Failure to establish heirship through cogent evidence and omiting prayers to cancel subsequent sale deeds justifies suit dismissal.

The Appellant (plaintiff) filed a suit for the cancellation of a sale deed, recovery of possession, and permanent injunction regarding ancestral property (Block/Survey No. 166).

She alleged that after her father’s death, her brothers (Defendant Nos. 1 and 2) mutated the revenue records excluding her name and sold the land to Defendant No. 3 in 2008 without her consent or share in consideration.

The property was subsequently sold to Defendant No. 4 in 2009, and then to Defendant Nos. 5 and 6 in 2011.

While Defendant No. 1 admitted the plaintiff's claim, the subsequent purchasers contested it.

The Trial Court dismissed the suit, finding the plaintiff failed to establish her heirship and alleging collusion.

The plaintiff appealed, asserting that the admission by her brother and the defendants' failure to lead evidence should have resulted in a decree in her favor.

1. Whether the plaintiff succeeded in establishing her lawful share in the suit property through cogent and convincing evidence.

2. Whether the entire sale deed in favor of subsequent purchasers is liable to be cancelled on the ground of non-payment of sale consideration to one alleged co-sharer.

The court applied the fundamental principle of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, that the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to prove her case on the strength of her own evidence rather than the weakness of the defense, as reaffirmed in *Nagar Parishad, Ratnagiri v. Gangaram Narayan Ambekar*.

It considered Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, regarding the cancellation of instruments.

The court also distinguished *Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao*, noting that while an adverse inference can be drawn if a party fails to enter the witness box, it does not discharge the plaintiff's primary burden of proof.

The court found significant material contradictions in the plaintiff’s evidence.

Although claiming to be an heir, her name was absent from revenue records for 20 years (1993–2011) without challenge.

In cross-examination, she contradicted her own affidavit regarding her father's date of death (stating 60-70 years ago vs. 30 years in the affidavit) and omitted a sister from the list of heirs while claiming the list was exhaustive.

Furthermore, the court noted a discrepancy in the property description, where the plaintiff referred to "Survey No. 116" in her deposition despite the documents pertaining to "Survey No. 166".

Crucially, the plaintiff sought to cancel the entire sale deed rather than just her share, and failed to seek a specific prayer for the cancellation of the final sale deed executed in favor of Defendant Nos. 5 and 6.

The court held that the defendants' failure to lead evidence did not assist the plaintiff because her own testimony was unreliable and insufficient to establish her rights.

The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove her case through reliable evidence and could not benefit from the defendants’ choice not to testify.

The suit was deemed unsustainable due to unexplained delays in challenging revenue entries, material contradictions regarding heirship, and the failure to challenge the relevant subsequent sale deeds.

Rule discharged.