A registered document carries a formidable presumption of validity under the Registration Act, and the burden of proving it to be a fraud or a 'sham' lies heavily upon the challenger, who must provide cogent foundational evidence; mere allegations are insufficient to displace the presumption.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 06.08.2007 passed by learned District Judge Shimla (learned Appellate Court) vide which the judgment and decree dated 17.06.2006 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.3, Shimla, H.P. (learned Trial Court) were upheld. (The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).

Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the plaintiff filed a civil suit before the learned Trial Court for seeking a declaration that Power of Attorney stated to have been executed by her on 17.04.1984 in favour of defendant No.2 is a fraudulent document which has been obtained by practicing fraud, misrepresentation and deceit, the sale deed dated 02.12.1988 executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No. 1 on plaintiff’s behalf is illegal, null and void regarding the suit land mentioned in the plaint and that the plaintiff is the co-owner in possession of Khasra No. 1344/696 measuring 3-10 bighas of land. A consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction for restraining the defendants from interfering in the ownership and possession of the plaintiff over the suit land and restraining the defendant No.2 from acting upon the Special Power of Attorney dated 17.04.1984 were also sought. It was asserted that the plaintiff is a woman who has been deserted by her husband. Defendant No.2 is an influential businessman, and his elder brother, Yashpal Garg, had purchased the land from the plaintiff’s husband. Defendant No.2, his brother and other family members constructed a hotel known as Asia the Dawn. Yashpal Garg, brother of defendant No.2, approached the plaintiff in the year 1983 for purchasing the land, and the plaintiff sold the land to him on 02.12.1985. Defendant No.2 and his brother, Yashpal Garg, approached the plaintiff and told her that her signature was required on certain papers to get the mutation attested in their favour. The plaintiff put her signature on the blank papers at the instance of defendant No.2 and his brother. Defendant No.2 sold the land to his wife, defendant No.1, for a sale consideration of ₹35,000/-. The plaintiff made enquiries and found that the sale was made on the basis of a Power of Attorney dated 17.04.1984, stated to have been executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant No.2. The plaintiff never visited the office of the Sub-Registrar, Shimla. She did not purchase the stamp papers for the execution of the Special Power of Attorney. Plaintiff does not know a word of English, and the document has been written in English. The Special Power of Attorney mentions that the plaintiff was identified by Surinder Kumar, whereas the plaintiff does not know any Surinder Kumar. The plaintiff had also not received any money from defendant No.2. The sale deed violates the provisions of Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act because defendant No.1 is not an agriculturist. The defendants threatened to dispossess the plaintiff of the suit land. Hence, the suit was filed to seek the relief mentioned above.

The suit was opposed by defendants No.1 and 2 by filing a written statement taking preliminary objections regarding lack of maintainability and jurisdiction, the suit being barred by limitation, and the plaint having not been properly verified as per the law. The defendants admitted that Yashpal Garg had purchased the land from the plaintiff. They denied the rest of the plaintiff's claim. They specifically denied that they had approached the plaintiff for getting her signatures for attesting the mutation or obtaining her signatures on the blank papers. They asserted that the plaintiff appointed defendant No.2 as her Power of Attorney in respect of the suit land. Plaintiff knew that she had sold the suit land to defendant No.1 through defendant No.2. The Special Power of Attorney was executed