Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Deepak Gupta, J.
Smt.Padma Devi and anr. - Appellants
Versus
Smt.Soma Devi. - Respondent
RSA No. 279 of 2000.
Decided on: 3.6.2011
Fraud - Property Dispute - Registration Act, Section 58, 60 - The court discussed the provisions of Sections 58 and 60 of the Registration Act and their interpretation in relation to the endorsement made on a registered document. The court also considered the evidence required to prove the facts stated in the endorsement and the effect of lack of detailed particulars of fraud in the plaintiff's pleading.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for declaration and consequential relief of injunction, claiming ownership of a property. The defendants contested the suit, claiming no fraud was played and that the plaintiff had agreed to sell the property to one of the defendants.
Finding of the Court:
Both the Courts below concluded that the power of attorney was obtained fraudulently and the sale deed was without consideration, decreeing in favor of the plaintiff. The court held that the detailed facts given in the plaint were sufficient, and the finding on the issue of fraud was a pure finding of fact.
Issues: Whether the endorsement made on a registered document in terms of Section 60 is itself evidence of the facts stated in the endorsement or they have to be proved in accordance with law or evidence? Whether the lack of detailed particulars of fraud in the plaintiff's pleading has any effect?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the statement recorded in the mutation proceedings or the endorsement made by the Registrar have to be proved in accordance with law and cannot be read in evidence. The court also concluded that the detailed facts given in the plaint were sufficient, and the finding on the issue of fraud was a pure finding of fact.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the findings of fact made by the lower courts in favor of the plaintiff.
Deepak Gupta, J.
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the ‘plaintiff’) filed a suit against the defendants for declaration and consequential relief of injunction. The plaintiff claimed that she was owner in possession of the suit property measuring 6 biswas situate in Phati Dhalpur, Kothi Maharaja, Tehsil and District Kullu and two storeyed house built thereon to the extent of 1/3rd share.
The undisputed facts of the case are that this property was owned by Sh.Swaru, father of the plaintiff and the plaintiff used to reside in the house situated over the suit property with her father. Sh.Swaru Ram unfortunately died. Sh.Swaru was survived by his widow Smt.Besru, the plaintiff Soma Devi and her brother and each got 1/3rd share in the property. Smt.Besru expired later on and the plaintiff and her brother remained in the care and custody of Sh.Puran Chand, defendant No.1 who is their uncle. The plaintiff got married sometime in the month of February, 1992. According to the plaintiff, she was a minor at that time but according to the defendants, she was a major but that does not have much bearing on the case.
The case of the plaintiff is that on 24.5.1992, the defendant No.1 met the plaintiff and represented to her that the property of her mother was to be mutated in her name and she was required to come to Tehsil Office on 25.5.1992 for this purpose. She was told that she could either engage a counsel or could ask defendant No.1 to appear on her behalf to get the mutation attested in her name. The plaintiff was in the family way and appointed the defendant No.1 as her attorney. Her case is that defendant No.1 was appointed as her attorney only for the purpose of getting the mutation attested in her name. This power of attorney was executed on 25.5.1992 on which date a number of signatures of the plaintiff were obtained on various papers and registers and thereafter, she was sent back with the assurance that all formalities in this behalf are completed.
In March 1997, the plaintiff expressed her desire to reside in the suit property alongwith her husband and children since she wanted to admit her children in a better school. Again defendant No.1 advised her to educate her children in the village itself. The defendant No.1 was in a position to dominate the mind of the plaintiff since he had brought her up.
In the year 1997 itself, the plaintiff came to know that somebody had come to serve court summons upon her. The plaintiff thereafter met defendant No.1 who expressed his ignorance about any case but assured the plaintiff that he would look-after the matter. The plaintiff now suspected something was amiss and she went to the Court and found out that a partition case had been filed against her and her brother by the defendant No.1. On further enquiry, it was revealed that defendant No.1 acting as the attorney of the plaintiff had sold her 1/3rd share which worked out to 2 biswas to his wife, defendant No.2 who was the real aunt of the plaintiff and mutation No.3599 in this regard was also attested in the name of defendant No.2. Accordingly the plaintiff claimed that the defendants have played fraud on her and the defendant No.1 had got the power of attorney executed from her by playing fraud on her and that he had executed a sale deed in favour of defendant No.2 without any consideration. The plaintiff claimed to be owner in possession of the suit property.
The defendants contested the suit. According to the defendants, after the death of the parents of the plaintiff, the plaintiff and her brother were looked-after and maintained by them. According to defendant No.1, he spent a huge amount on the maintenance and marriage of the plaintiff. The case of the defendants is that no fraud was played by them on the plaintiff and that the plaintiff had agreed to sell the suit property to defendant No.2 and for this purpose she had executed the power of attorney s
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
