Back
SANJAY VASHISTH
Bishan Kaur (deceased) – Appellant
Versus
Gurvinder Kaur – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Mr. Sanjay Vashisth, J. ( Oral)
CM-2270-C-2020
For the reasons set out in the application, the same is allowed. Consequently, the delay of 154 days in re-filing the accompanying appeal is hereby condoned.
Civil Miscellaneous application stands disposed of.
RSA-729-2020 (O&M)
Present Regular Second Appeal (RSA) has been filed by the plaintiff - Bishan Kaur (deceased) through her LR Amarjit Kaur (appellant herein) against the concurrent findings of dismissal of suit filed by her.
2. Plaintiff filed a suit, seeking a decree of declaration that defendant No.3 - Balvir Singh (respondent No.3 herein) has sold out the land measuring 10K-8M (detailed in paragraph No.2 of the trial Court judgment), on the basis of a forged General Power of Attorney (GPA), dated 30.10.2007, to defendants No.1 & 2 (respondents No.1 & 2 herein).
Further, challenge is made to the impugned sale-deed bearing Vasika No. 3800 dated 16.11.2007, and mutation based thereon, which is a consequential relief, based upon the primary relief of getting GPA dated 30.10.2007, declared as illegal.
3. Based upon the pleadings of the parties, following seven issues were framed by learned Trial Court vide its order dated 02
Registered documents are presumed valid, and the burden of proof for fraud lies on the alleging party, requiring clear and substantial evidence.
The burden of proof rests on the party asserting forgery, and co-ownership entitles plaintiffs to seek declarations without claiming separate possession.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of timely and proper legal action, and the need for plaintiffs to make clear and consistent pleadings to support their claims.
The burden of proof regarding the validity of executory documents lies with the party alleging their legitimacy in property disputes.
The judgment confirms that a suit can challenge forged documents affecting property rights and reaffirms co-sharer rights in joint possession cases.
An appellate court cannot overturn an acquittal unless the trial court's decision is unreasonable or not based on evidence, respecting the presumption of innocence.
A forged Power of Attorney invalidates subsequent transactions, affirming that fraud and justice cannot coexist; the High Court's review under Section 100 CPC is limited to substantial questions of l....
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
