Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. KHANWILKAR, DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.
Rattan Singh & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Nirmal Gill & Ors. etc. – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 3681-3682 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 21326-21327 of 2019)
With
Inder Pal Singh & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
Nirmal Gill & Ors. etc. – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 3683-3684 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 29775-29776 of 2019)
Decided On : 16-11-2020
(A) Agreement to Sell – Fraudulent Transaction – Alleged fraud committed in respect to 1990 GPA and Sale deeds – Disputed documents are registered – A document is presumed to be genuine if same is registered – Initial onus was on plaintiff who had challenged stated registered document – As execution of 1990 GPA and sale deeds in present cases is denied by plaintiff, it became necessary for plaintiff to examine attesting witnesses of disputed documents to establish her allegation about its non-execution – Stated documents were prepared on the basis of instructions of plaintiff and had been duly executed by her in presence of attesting witnesses – Plaintiff and defendants always had cordial relationship and plaintiff was on visiting terms – Plaintiff had failed to prove fact of misuse of trust by defendants as such – Handwriting expert had determined disputed signatures to have been signed by plaintiff herself – Expert opinions are not a binding piece of evidence and have to be corroborated with other pieces of evidence – Plaintiff failed to prove that her signatures on subject documents are forged – Since 1963 GPA is a document which is more than 30 years old, presumption in favour of a 30 years old document is a rebuttable presumption – Trial Court was right in holding 1963 GPA, to be a genuine document – Standard of proof required in a civil dispute is preponderance of probabilities and not beyond reasonable doubt – Impugned judgment and decree passed by High Court set aside – Judgment and decree passed by first appellate Court restored. [Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 68, 71 and 90; Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 3] (Paras 32, 34, 37, 42, 64, 65, 69, 71, 80 and 84)
(B) Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 17 – Limitation – Effect of fraud – For invoking Section 17 of 1963 Act, two ingredients have to be pleaded and duly proved – One is existence of a fraud and other is discovery of such fraud – In present case, since plaintiff failed to establish existence of fraud, there is no occasion for its discovery – Plaintiff cannot be extended benefit under said provision – Suits are ex-facie barred by limitation. (Paras 78 and 81)
Facts of the case:
The dispute between the parties pertains to a General Power of Attorney (GPA) purported to have been executed by the plaintiff on 28.06.19903 in favour of defendant No. 1 and consequently sale deeds executed by defendant No. 1 as an attorney of plaintiff. Sale deeds dated 29.06.1990 and 03.07.1990 purported to have been executed directly by the plaintiff are also disputed by the plaintiff. Present appeals take exception to the common Judgment and decree of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dated 27.05.2019 in R.S.A. Nos. 2901/2012 and 3881/2012, whereby the High Court reversed the concurrent findings of trial Court and the first appellate Court and decreed the suits of plaintiff. Questions that arise for consideration in present appeals are: 1. Whether the suits filed by the plaintiff were within limitation? 2. Whether the 1990 GPA and sale deeds dated 29.06.1990 and 03.07.1990 purported to have been executed by the plaintiff is a result of fraud and forgery or whether the same had been executed by the plaintiff herself?
Findings of Court:
Trial Court was in error to hold that person who has disclosed the information was not examined by plaintiff, when it had come on record through the testimony of Kultar Singh (DW2), that Rustam Singh expired before the suits came up for trial. If so, the finding of the High Court that the testimony of Rustam Singh strengthened the case of plaintiff is ex facie erroneous and manifestly wrong. In as much as, the said person was never examined before the Court in these proceedings.
Result : Appeals allowed.
The legal document discusses a complex property dispute involving allegations of fraud, forgery, and issues related to the execution and validity of registered documents, specifically a General Power of Attorney (GPA) and sale deeds. The court's analysis emphasizes the presumption of genuineness attached to registered documents and the evidentiary procedures required to challenge them.
Key points include: - The initial burden of proof rests on the party challenging the registered documents, with the presumption of their validity until rebutted (!) (!) . - Expert opinions on signatures are not binding and require corroboration; divergence in expert testimony weakens claims of forgery (!) (!) . - The existence of a long-standing GPA, such as the one from 1963, is presumed genuine due to the period exceeding thirty years, unless successfully challenged with tangible evidence (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The burden shifts if the party alleges fraud or forgery, but such claims must be substantiated with clear, credible evidence, including examination of attesting witnesses or proof of fraudulent conduct (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The standard of proof in civil disputes is preponderance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt, which influences how evidence is evaluated, especially regarding discrepancies and expert opinions (!) (!) (!) . - If a party fails to produce the attesting witnesses or to prove non-execution, the registered documents are deemed valid unless fraud is conclusively established (!) (!) (!) . - The court underscores that discrepancies or contradictions in the evidence, such as the alleged impersonation or address alterations, must be convincingly proved; mere assertions are insufficient (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The document's registration creates a rebuttable presumption of authenticity, which the plaintiff failed to effectively rebut, leading to the conclusion that the disputed documents are valid and binding (!) (!) (!) .
In summary, the court's findings reinforce the importance of adhering to procedural standards for proof, the weight given to registered documents, and the necessity of credible evidence to rebut the presumption of authenticity. The case ultimately clarifies that, without substantive proof of fraud or forgery, registered documents are presumed genuine, and claims based on mere discrepancies or expert opinions lacking corroboration are insufficient to overturn this presumption.
JUDGMENT :
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals take exception to the common Judgment and decree of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh,1[for short, “the High Court”], dated 27.05.2019 in R.S.A. Nos. 2901/2012 and 3881/2012, whereby the High Court reversed the concurrent findings of the trial Court and the first appellate Court and decreed the suits of the plaintiff.
3. For convenience, the parties are referred to as per their status in Civil Suit No. 11/2001 before the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hoshiarpur, 2[for short, “the trial Court”]. The admitted factual position in the present cases is that one Harbans Singh had married Gurbachan Kaur and fathered Joginder Kaur (plaintiff – now deceased) in the wedlock. After the demise of Gurbachan Kaur, Harbans Singh married Piar Kaur and in that wedlock, he fathered Gurdial Singh (defendant No. 3), Rattan Singh (defendant No. 4), Narinder Pal Singh (defendant No. 5) and Surjit Singh (defendant No. 6). Harcharan Kaur (defendant No. 1) is the wife of defendant No. 4 and the step sister-in-law of the plaintiff. Nirmal Gill (respondent herein) is daughter and the legal representative of the plaintiff (Joginder Kaur) and Charanjit Singh is her (plaintiff’s) son.
4. Harbans Singh was the owner of various stretches of land at Nawanshahr, Jalandhar and Hoshiarpur which, upon his death in the year 1963, devolved upon the plaintiff, her step brothers - defendant Nos. 3 to 6 and her step mother in six equal shares.
5. The plaintiff and the defendant Nos. 3 to 6 had cordial relations and the plaintiff used to frequently visit her maternal home.
6. The dispute between the parties pertains to a General Power of Attorney (GPA) purported to have been executed by the plaintiff on 28.06.1990,3[for short, “the 1990 GPA”] in favour of defendant No. 1 and consequently sale deeds executed by defendant No. 1 as an attorney of the plaintiff. Sale deeds dated 29.06.1990 and 03.07.1990 purported to have been executed directly by the plaintiff are also disputed by the plaintiff. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendants sought her signatures on blank papers in the year 1990 under the guise of preparation and processing of documents for the purpose of getting the estate left behind by their father mutated in their names. Reposing complete trust in her step brothers, the plaintiff signed the papers and handed it over to the person tasked for that purpose by the step brothers - defendant Nos. 3 to 6. Thereafter, the defendant No. 3 visited plaintiff’s matrimonial home at Delhi asking her to come to village Kalyanpur in June 1990 for getting the said mutation effected. Accordingly, the plaintiff visited the village and stayed there for 3 or 4 days.
7. Subsequent to the retirement of her husband in the year 1999, the plaintiff shifted to Mohali and being closer to her maternal home, the frequency of her meeting the relatives increased. In a wedding function of a relative at Jalandhar in February 2001, where the plaintiff and her step brothers - defendant Nos. 3 to 6 were present, one of her cousins Rustam Singh had mentioned to her in a conversation that the defendant Nos. 3 to 6 had sold a part of the property which they jointly held with the plaintiff.
8. Upon learning about the said fact, the plaintiff made enquiries in that regard including verified revenue records whence she learnt about existence of a GPA purported to have been executed in 1963, 4[for short, “the 1963 GPA”] by all the legal heirs of Harbans Singh including the plaintiff, in favour of defendant No. 3 and based on the said GPA, the estate of Harbans Singh had already been mutated in their joint names in November 1963. The plaintiff also discovered the existence of aforementioned disputed documents which were executed without her knowledge, during her visit to the village in the year 1990. The plaintiff claimed the aforementioned documents to be a result of fraud perpetrated upon her by her step broth
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
