A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The judgment adjudicates a complex intra-family property dispute founded on allegations of fraud, impersonation, and misuse of fiduciary trust in execution of a General Power of Attorney and multiple sale deeds. The plaintiff alleged that her step-brothers and step sister-in-law procured her signatures by deceit and used them to alienate her share in ancestral land through registered instruments executed in 1990. The Trial Court dismissed both suits for want of proof of fraud. The First Appellate Court substantially concurred, with marginal modification. The High Court, however, reversed concurrent findings, inferring fraud from circumstances and discrepancies.

The Supreme Court restored the Trial Court and First Appellate Court findings, emphasizing settled principles governing registered documents, burden of proof, attestation, expert evidence, and limitation. It held that registration raises a presumption of genuineness and the initial burden lies on the party alleging fraud. Mere suspicion, familial confidence, or clerical inconsistencies cannot displace statutory presumptions. The Court reaffirmed that civil cases are decided on preponderance of probabilities and expert opinions are corroborative, not conclusive.

On limitation, the Court held that Section 17 of the Limitation Act, 1963 requires proof of both fraud and discovery, which the plaintiff failed to establish. The judgment also delineates the limited scope of second appeals and condemns interference with concurrent factual findings based on conjecture.

The ruling is significant for property law, evidence law, and civil procedure, reinforcing judicial restraint and evidentiary discipline in fraud-based challenges to registered conveyances.

Keywords:
Fraud, Registered Documents, Burden of Proof, Power of Attorney, Limitation Act

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

The litigation arises from inheritance of agricultural and urban land devolving upon children from two marriages of a common ancestor. After the ancestor’s death in 1963, the estate stood mutated based on a General Power of Attorney of 1963. Decades later, disputes emerged concerning subsequent conveyances executed in 1990 through another General Power of Attorney and direct sale deeds.

The plaintiff, an educated woman residing outside Punjab, alleged that her familial trust was exploited. She claimed that signatures were obtained on blank papers and later converted into registered conveyances without her consent. Her challenge extended not only to the 1990 GPA but also to multiple sale deeds executed directly by her and by her alleged attorney.

The defendants asserted voluntary execution, proper registration, attestation by village officials, and payment of consideration. The Trial Court, after extensive evidence, found no proof of fraud. The First Appellate Court substantially agreed.

The High Court, exercising second appellate jurisdiction, reversed concurrent findings by drawing inferences from circumstantial inconsistencies and social assumptions. This prompted appeals before the Supreme Court, raising foundational questions on burden of proof, evidentiary presumptions, and judicial limits under Section 100 CPC.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The plaintiff, Joginder Kaur (since deceased), inherited a fractional share in extensive properties situated across Punjab districts. In 1963, a General Power of Attorney was executed jointly by heirs for mutation purposes. The relationship between the plaintiff and her step-brothers remained cordial for decades.

In 1990, a General Power of Attorney dated 28.06.1990 was executed in favour of the plaintiff’s step sister-in-law. Based on this GPA, several sale deeds were executed. Additionally, sale deeds dated 29.06.1990 and 03.07.1990 purportedly bore the plaintiff’s own signatures. All documents were duly registered.

The plaintiff alleged impersonation, forged signatures, misuse of blank signed papers, and non-payment of consideration. She claimed discovery of fraud only in 2001, after a relative mentioned sale of joint property. Two suits were instituted seeking declaration, cancellation, and injunction.

The defendants relied upon attesting witnesses, scribe testimony, handwriting expert evidence, revenue records, and registration endorsements. The Trial Court dismissed both suits. The First Appellate Court confirmed dismissal except for a minor correction regarding possession of a small parcel.

The High Court reversed these findings, holding fraud to be apparent. The defendants and subsequent purchasers approached the Supreme Court.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether the registered 1990 GPA and sale deeds were vitiated by fraud and impersonation?
ii. Whether the plaintiff discharged the burden of proof required to invalidate registered documents?
iii. Whether the suits were barred by limitation under the Limitation Act, 1963?
iv. Whether the High Court exceeded jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the appellants submitted that the registered instruments carry statutory presumption of validity. The plaintiff failed to plead fraud with particularity as mandated under Order VI Rule 4 CPC. The evidence of the scribe and attesting witness proved execution. Expert opinion relied upon by the plaintiff was inconclusive and contradicted by defence expert evidence.

It was argued that the High Court re-appreciated evidence impermissibly and substituted its own conjectural reasoning for concurrent factual findings.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the respondent contended that defendants enjoyed active confidence and stood in a fiduciary relationship. Discrepancies in addresses, alteration of dates, sequence of scribe entries, and absence of plaintiff’s photograph established fraud. It was urged that limitation stood extended under Section 17 Limitation Act.

H) JUDGMENT 

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals. It held that registration raises a presumption of genuineness as affirmed in Prem Singh v. Birbal. The initial burden lay squarely on the plaintiff, who alleged fraud. That burden was never discharged.

The Court held that execution was duly proved through attesting witness testimony, scribe evidence, and corroborative material under Sections 68–71 Evidence Act. The Court rejected the High Court’s inference-based approach, noting that suspicion cannot replace proof.

On expert evidence, the Court reiterated that expert opinions are advisory and not binding, particularly when contradictory. The plaintiff failed to corroborate allegations of forgery.

On limitation, the Court held that Section 17 Limitation Act requires proof of both fraud and its discovery. Absence of proof of fraud rendered the suits ex facie barred.

The Court condemned interference with concurrent findings and restored the Trial Court and First Appellate Court judgments.

a) RATIO DECIDENDI

A registered document is presumed genuine, and the burden of disproving it lies on the challenger. Allegations of fraud must be proved by tangible evidence. Civil disputes are decided on preponderance of probabilities. Second appellate courts cannot disturb concurrent factual findings absent perversity.

b) OBITER DICTA

The Court observed that hypersensitivity to delay in recording evidence is unwarranted and that signature of vendee is not mandatory for validity of a sale deed.

c) GUIDELINES

i. Courts must respect statutory presumptions attached to registered documents.
ii. Fraud must be pleaded and proved with specificity.
iii. Expert evidence requires corroboration.
iv. Second appeals must remain confined to substantial questions of law.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment reinforces evidentiary discipline in civil adjudication. It cautions against dilution of statutory presumptions through speculative reasoning. The ruling strengthens certainty in property transactions and underscores judicial restraint in appellate review.

J) REFERENCES

a) Important Cases Referred

i. Prem Singh v. Birbal, [2006] 1 Supp. SCR 692
ii. Anil Rishi v. Gurbaksh Singh, [2006] 1 Supp. SCR 659
iii. Satya Gupta v. Brijesh Kumar, [1998] 3 SCR 1183
iv. Jagdish Chand Sharma v. Narain Singh Saini, [2015] 6 SCR 397
v. Aloka Bose v. Parmatma Devi, [2008] 17 SCR 822

b) Important Statutes Referred

i. Indian Evidence Act, 1872
ii. Limitation Act, 1963
iii. Transfer of Property Act, 1882