Pingamage vs Pingamage and Others – sllr 2005 volume 2 page 370

In the case between several plaintiff-respondents, including individuals claiming title to land, and the defendant-appellant, the court addressed the validity of a deed (deed No. 465 dated 18.08.1986) concerning the plaintiffs’ title and the challenge by the defendant based on allegations of improper execution, non-payment of consideration, and insufficient evidence of attestation. It was held that the deed in question was duly executed, with compliance established under Section 68 of the Evidence Ordinance and Sections 31(9) and 33 of the Notaries Ordinance. The rule was reaffirmed that the burden of proving fraud, misrepresentation, or undue influence rests on the party alleging such claims, and mere non-payment of consideration does not invalidate a conveyance but may entitle the party