The court emphasized that the burden of proving fraud lies with the party alleging it, and mere assertions without supporting evidence are insufficient in challenging the validity of registered documents.

JUDGMENT :

N. Sathish Kumar, J.

Challenging the decree and judgment of the Trial Court dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.111 of 2011 for declaration and for permanent injunction, the appeal in A.S.No.69 of 2022 is filed. The appeal in A.S.No.70 of 2022 has been filed by the unsuccessful defendants as against the judgment and decree of the Trial Court passed in O.S.No.14 of 2012 granting declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the plaintiff in that suit.

2. As both the appeals arise out of the common judgment passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.111 of 201 and O.S.No.14 of 2012, we are inclined to dispose of both the appeals in a common judgment.

3. The parties are arrayed to as per their own ranking before the Trial Court.

4. The suit in O.S.No.111 of 2011 filed by the plaintiff/Nishani through her power agent one Ponmudi to declare that the suit property belonged to her and sought for a declaration to declare the sale deeds dated 20.08.2003, 31.08.2006 and 23.11.2006 registered in Doc.Nos.3745 of 2003, 5541/2006 and 4173 of 2006 as null and void. The plaintiff in O.S.No.14 of 2012 is the purchaser of the property and had sought for declaration and permanent injunction based on the purchase he had made.

5. The following facts are necessary for disposal of both the appeals:-

5.a. It is the case of the plaintiff in O.S.No.111 of 2011 that she domiciled in France, she came to India to purchase the property on 12.08.2002 and the first defendant one Saravanan, who was her family friend, therefore, she sought his help to purchase the property. Accordingly, he has helped her in purchasing the property. The plaintiff was not well-versed in Tamil language and as the first defendant is the family friend, he volunteered to assist the plaintiff taking advantage of the affinity with the plaintiff's family. He got confidence of the plaintiff, accordingly, the plaintiff has purchased the property on 12.08.2002 by the registered Doc.No.2871/2022 and the same has been registered on the file of SRO, Oulgarret, Pondicherry. According to the plaintiff, on the same day, taking advantage of the fact that the plaintiff was not well versed in Tamil, the power deed was created by the first defendant and is registered in his name in Doc.No.366 of 2002 dated 13.08.2002. The plaintiff bonafidely believed that the signature was taken only for the purpose of registering the sale deed alone. She has no knowledge about the execution of the power of attorney. According to her, power of attorney obtained by the first defendant is a forged one and she was not made to know about the contents as she is not in a position to read the Tamil language. Later, after the plaintiff left for France, she came to know that the first defendant claimed rights over the property, therefore, the plaintiff has executed a notarised deed of power of attorney on 02.03.2005 and subsequently on 08.08.2006, the plaintiff has also executed another registered power of attorney on 08.08.2006. On verification by her power agent, it came to her knowledge that the first defendant had sold the property in favour of his wife on the basis of power of attorney dated 20.08.2003. Hence, according to the plaintiff, the sale deed is not valid since the same has come into existence pursuant to the fraudulent power of attorney.

5.b. It is also the case of the plaintiff that the first defendant had even before the purchase of the property by the plaintiff entered into an agreement to sell with the vendor K.Rajarajan for sale of the property to himself. This factum was suppressed by the first defendant, the same is