The validity of a power of attorney and subsequent sale deed cannot be doubted without substantial evidence, and registered documents hold legal weight unless proven otherwise.

CAV JUDGMENT

Per Bibhu Datta Guru

1. Challenge in the present appeal is to the Judgment and decree dated 23/11/2021 passed in Civil Suit No. 47 A/2013 by the IIIrd Additional District Judge, Raipur, whereby the suit preferred by the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 was decreed in his favour and rejected the counter claim preferred by Defendant No.1/appellant herein.

(For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred hereinafter as per their status shown in the suit before the trial Court)

2. (i) The facts which are essential for adjudication of this appeal are that Plaintiff- Surendra Sah instituted a civil suit against the defendants claiming ownership and possession over the disputed property i.e. House LIG 76, slice 2 situated at Veer Savarkar Nagar, Hirapur, Raipur, Chhattisgarh (for short ‘the disputed property’), also seeking a declaration that the sale deed executed (Ex.D-6) on 05/09/2012 by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1 as null and void, and for granting permanent injunction over the suit property. Defendant No.1 has also filed a counterclaim against the disputed property and has sought reliefs i.e. recovery of Rs. 1,70,000/- with interest, possession over the disputed property and permanent injunction.

(ii) Briefly, the plaintiff's case is that the plaintiff is the owner, proprietor and occupant of the disputed property. The plaintiff purchased a plot of the said house from defendant No.3 on 06.11.2008 and after constructing a house over it, he has been continuously residing and occupying it with his family. The plaintiff is illiterate, he only knows how to sign, he does not know how to read and write. He wanted to get his house constructed further, so he wanted to take a loan from the bank. Defendant no.1 used to arrange loans from the bank, so when the plaintiff discussed the matter with him, he assured him of getting a loan from the bank.

(iii) Further case of the plaintiff is that Defendant No.1 had come to know about the plaintiff's status and the fact that he was illiterate, so with the intention of usurping his house, he took total eight cheques i.e. four blank cheques and four signed cheques of the Oriental Bank of Commerce, Tatiband Raipur, from him. He also took the sale deed, four photographs of the plaintiff, along with photocopies of the plaintiff's income tax papers on the assurance to provide the loan to him. Thereafter, he said to the plaintiff that why would you run around, give him a power of attorney, he will get your loan soon. The plaintiff, being illiterate, did not understand his cunningness and fraud and executed a power of attorney in the name of the Defendant No.1.

(iv) Subsequently, Defendant No.1 took the plaintiff to the sub- registrar office and got him to sign some papers on 09/08/2012. After several months, Defendant No.1 did not provide the loan to the plaintiff and started making excuses. Then the plaintiff talked about taking a loan from another bank and went to the office of Defendant No.3 in Kabir Nagar on 06.11.2012 to get a No Objection Certificate, where he was told that Defendant No.1 had got the sale deed of the said house registered in his name on the basis of power of attorney and he submitted an application for transfer in the office of the Defendant No.3 in Kabir Nagar. The plaintiff is not the owner of the disputed house and hence no objection certificate can not be given to him.

(v) The plaintiff's contention further is that the plaintiff also came to know that Defendant No.1, instead of getting the power of attorney registered in his own name, had registered the power of attorney in the name of his wife i.e. Defendant No.2, and got the signature of his own and his mother-in-law as witnesses. Thus, Defendant No.1 had registered a fake and fabricated power of attorney with the intention of committing fraud and cheating. The plaintiff had not sold his house to Defendant No.1 & 2, nor had he given any power of attorney to sell the said house. Defendant No.1 & 2, wit