The application of Section 17 of the Limitation Act to protect the rights of a party defrauded from lapse of time until they remain in ignorance of the fraud, and the presumption of validity of a registered document with the burden of proof on the defendant to rebut the presumption.

JUDGMENT

1. This Second Appeal is filed aggrieved against the Judgment and decree in A.S.No.225 of 1998 on the file of VIII Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam dated 22.02.2005 confirming the Judgment and decree in O.S.No.795 of 1996 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, dated 24.07.1998.

2. The appellants herein are the appellants in the lower appellate Court and the defendant(s) in the suit. The respondents herein are the respondents in the lower appellate Court and the plaintiffs in the suit.

3. The plaintiffs initiated action in O.S.No.795 of 1996 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, with a prayer to cancel the registered sale deed dated 06.07.1988, as the same is obtained by fraud, and for vacant possession of the plaint schedule property after evicting the defendant, him men therefrom and the costs of the suit.

4. The learned Principle Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam decreed the suit with costs cancelling the Ex.A2 sale deed in favour of the defendant and the plaintiffs therein are entitled for recovery of vacant possession of the schedule property after evicting the defendant therefrom. Aggrieved thereby, the defendant in the above suit filed the appeal vide A.S.No.225 of 1998 before the first appellate Court i.e., VIII Additional District Judge (FTC), Visakhapatnam. The learned VIII Additional District Judge dismissed the first appeal and confirmed the decree and judgment passed by the trial court. The unsuccessful appellants/ defendants herein approached this Court by way of this second appeal.

5. For the sake of convenience, both the parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

6. The case of the plaintiffs in brief, as set out in the plaint averments in OS.No.795 of 1996, are as follows:

The first plaintiff is the absolute owner of the site admeasuring 1000 square yards covered by Sub Division No.E3 in S.No.3 in patta No.23 of Balayya Sastry Layout. He purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 18.06.1958 for valuable consideration and he was in possession and enjoyment of the same. As there was a threat of encroachment and as the first plaintiff was residing at Anakapale, he executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of the defendant. Since the defendant is not diligently watching, the first plaintiff sold 300 square yards each to M.Jagannadharao and A.Krishna on 21.07.1987 and 17.08.1987 and retained the remaining extent of 400 square yards with a view to construct a house. In December 1992, the defendant developed an evil idea of grabbing the remaining property, because of the escalation of prices of the site, and executed a registered sale dead in favour of one Vuda Satyanarayana for an extent of 200 square yards covered by Sub Division No.E-3/3 and also another sale dead in his favour without the knowledge or consent of the first plaintiff. The plaint schedule property is the property for which the defendant executed sale dead in his favour. On enquiries, the plaintiff came to know that the defendant executed a registered sale deed for an extent of 200 square yards in favour of one Satyanarayana, for which a separate action is reserved, and another in favour of the defendant himself to cause loss and harm to the first plaintiff. The defendant has taken undue advantage of the power of attorney, played fraud and obtained sale deed in his favour and as such, the first plaintiff cancelled the power of attorney dated 30.06.1986 by a registered instrument dated 27.01.1993. The first plaintiff has informed the cancelation of the power of attorney and asked the defendant to vacate and deliver the property under his occupation for which the defendant claimed as the owner without any manner of right. The defendant is claiming ownership in respect of the property covered under registered sale deed dated 06.07.1988 and the defendant cannot execute the sale deed without the consent of the plaintiff for ben