Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.
Ram Jatan Rai (in 119) - Appellants
Jai Shanker Prakash (in 127)
Versus
Dr. Sita Ram Singh & Ors. - Respondents
First Appeal No.119 and 127 of 2010
Decided On: 13-08-2013
Forgery - Property Dispute - Registration Act - [FACT OF THE CASE] The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession over a property, alleging that a Power of Attorney and subsequent sale deeds were fraudulent and not binding. The trial court found the Power of Attorney to be void ab initio and decreed the suit. The defendants appealed, arguing that the thumb impression evidence was inadmissible and the trial court should have appointed an expert for comparison. The plaintiff denied executing the Power of Attorney and the defendants failed to prove its authenticity. The court compared the thumb impression and signature, finding them to be of different persons. The court also compared the photograph, concluding it was not of the plaintiff. The defendants' claim of payment to the plaintiff was unsupported and the Power of Attorney was found to be forged and fabricated. [FINDING OF THE COURT] The court dismissed the appeals, confirming the trial court's finding that the Power of Attorney was void and the subsequent sale deeds did not confer title. [ISSUES] Authentication of Power of Attorney, admissibility of thumb impression evidence, appointment of expert for comparison, payment to plaintiff, applicability of Registration Act. [RATIO DECIDENDI] The court has jurisdiction to compare disputed writings and photographs, and to rely on expert reports from other proceedings. Evidence without proper pleading cannot be considered. [FINAL DECISION] The appeals were dismissed, and costs were awarded to the plaintiff. [MAIN LEGAL POINT] The court has the jurisdiction to compare disputed writings and photographs, and to rely on expert reports from other proceedings. [CATEGORY] Civil Law [SUB-CATEGORY] Property Dispute
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The main issue in the case was whether the Power of Attorney (PoA) and subsequent sale deeds were forged, fabricated, or validly executed by the plaintiff, Dr. Sita Ram Singh (!) (!) .
The court found that the thumb impression, signature, and photograph on the disputed Power of Attorney did not belong to Dr. Sita Ram Singh, indicating that the document was forged and fabricated. Expert comparison of thumb impressions and signatures supported this conclusion (!) (!) (!) .
The court held that the Power of Attorney was void ab initio, as it was forged, and therefore, the sale deeds executed pursuant to it did not confer any title or rights to the purchasers (!) (!) .
The evidence included expert reports, which the court accepted as reliable and admissible, and the court exercised its jurisdiction under relevant provisions to compare disputed writings and photographs without necessarily relying on expert testimony when differences are apparent (!) (!) (!) .
The court noted that the photograph pasted on the Power of Attorney was not of the plaintiff, and the signature was not of Dr. Sita Ram Singh, reinforcing the conclusion of forgery (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that the registration of the Power of Attorney at the specified registry was improper, given the address details and the applicable registration laws, further supporting the fraudulent nature of the document (!) .
The court dismissed the appeals filed by the defendants, reaffirming the trial court's decision that the Power of Attorney was forged, and consequently, the sale deeds were invalid. The costs were awarded to the plaintiff (!) .
Additional evidence, such as the alleged payment receipt, was deemed inadmissible because it was not pleaded in the written statement and was produced without proper foundation (!) .
The court clarified that the defendant purchasers did not acquire any rights or title based on the forged Power of Attorney, and therefore, their sale deeds were ineffective (!) .
The court rejected the defendants’ request for further expert examination or additional evidence, citing procedural rules and the sufficiency of the existing evidence to decide the case (!) (!) .
These points summarize the court's findings, legal reasoning, and final decision regarding the forgery of the Power of Attorney and its impact on the property rights involved.
Mungeshwar Sahoo, J. - Since both the First Appeals arise out of the same judgment and decree dated 05.06.2010 passed by the learned 3rd Subordinate Judge, Danapur in Title Suit No.96 of 2008/129 of 2010, both the First Appeals are heard together and are disposed of by this judgment.
2. The plaintiff Dr. Sita Ram Singh filed the aforesaid suit through his Power of Attorney Holder Mr. Ranjan Kumar for declaration of title and confirmation of possession over the Schedule-5 property and for declaration that the alleged Power of Attorney dated 19.12.2005 and the registered sale deeds executed on 27.06.2007 and 23.05.2008 pursuant to the said Power of Attorney are fraudulent, collusive, void ab initio and not binding on the plaintiff regarding the property detailed in Schedule-5 of the plaint. The plaintiff also prayed for injunction and cost of the suit.
3. The plaintiff-respondent Dr. Sita Ram Singh claimed the aforesaid relief on the allegation that the suit property belonged to one Chandrika Ram. He had purchased the land by registered sale deed dated 10.07.1965. He died and then his widow, sons and daughters sold the property by registered sale deeds to different purchasers in the year 1981, including the plaintiff Dr. Sita Ram Singh. The plaintiff sold 15 decimals land out of Schedule-4 property to Smt. Nilima Rai and the rest of the property remained with the plaintiff, which is detailed in Schedule-5 of the plaint. The plaintiff is doctor in profession and resides at United Kingdom. He executed the Power of Attorney in favour of Ranjan Kumar for looking after the property on 24.05.2007. In September, 2007 the said Power of Attorney Holder Ranjan Kumar heard that Ram Jatan Rai is trying to sell the suit property alleging that he is the Power of Attorney Holder of Dr. Sita Ram Singh. Ranjan Kumar went to the Registry Office and got the information about the so-called fraudulent and fabricated Power of Attorney dated 19.12.2005. Thereafter he gave the necessary information to the Circle Officer and the Registry Office and also got news printed in the daily newspaper ‘Dainik Jagaran’. He informed the plaintiff about this fraudulent and fabricated Power of Attorney. The plaintiff came to know about the fabrication after obtaining the certified copy of the Power of Attorney dated 19.12.2005. According to the plaintiff, a photo of another person has been pasted on the Power of Attorney and by impersonating the plaintiff for the purpose of grabbing the plaintiff’s land the said Power of Attorney was created fraudulently and collusively. The plaintiff then filed Rupaspur P.S. Case No.26 of 2008 against the concerned persons, including Ram Jatan Rai and his son Jitendra Kumar.
4. The further case of the plaintiff is that, he confirmed the unregistered Power of Attorney dated 24.05.2007 in favour of Ranjan Kumar by registering a further Power of Attorney on 11.06.2008 and according to the direction of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate the finger print of the plaintiff was obtained in presence of Judicial Magistrate and then it was sent for comparison to Forensic Science Laboratory with the disputed finger print occurring in the register of Registry Office, Danapur, which was called for. According to the plaintiff, he never executed any Power of Attorney in favour of Ram Jatan Rai nor he ever directed any scribe to write Power of Attorney nor he ever signed any such Power of Attorney dated 19.12.2005. He also never pasted his own photo on any such Power of Attorney and the alleged Power of Attorney dated 19.12.2005 was got executed by somebody else by committing forgery and fabricating the same. The sale deed executed by Ram Jatan Rai in favour of his son Jitendra Kumar on 27.06.2007 and the sale deed executed in favour of defendant no.3 dated 23.05.2008 are collusive, illegal, inoperative, fraudulent and do not affect the right of the plaintiff on the land mentioned in Schedule-5 of the plaint.
5. The defendant no.1 filed
AI
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
