Supreme Court Upholds Validity of 1990 Power of Attorney and Sale Deeds: Rattan Singh vs. Nirmal Gill (2020)

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a General Power of Attorney (GPA) and subsequent sale deeds, challenged on grounds of fraud, are valid.

CASE TYPE: Civil Law – Property Dispute

Case Name: Rattan Singh & Ors. vs. Nirmal Gill & Ors.

Judgment Date: 16 November 2020

Date of the Judgment: 16 November 2020
Citation: (2020) INSC 816
Judges: A.M. Khanwilkar, J., Dinesh Maheshwari, J.
Can a registered General Power of Attorney (GPA) and subsequent sale deeds be declared invalid based on allegations of fraud, even if the documents are facially valid? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent property dispute case, focusing on the burden of proof and the validity of registered documents. The core issue revolved around whether a woman was defrauded by her step-brothers regarding her share of inherited property. The bench consisted of Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari, with the judgment authored by Justice Khanwilkar.

Case Background

The case involves a property dispute among family members. Harbans Singh had two wives: Gurbachan Kaur, with whom he had Joginder Kaur (the original plaintiff), and Piar Kaur, with whom he had Gurdial Singh, Rattan Singh, Narinder Pal Singh, and Surjit Singh. Upon Harbans Singh’s death in 1963, his property was divided equally among his children and second wife. The dispute arose from a General Power of Attorney (GPA) purportedly executed by Joginder Kaur in 1990, in favor of Harcharan Kaur, wife of Rattan Singh, and subsequent sale deeds executed by Harcharan Kaur as Joginder Kaur’s attorney. Joginder Kaur claimed that her signatures were obtained on blank papers under the guise of mutation of property and that the documents were fraudulent.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court dismissed both suits, finding no fraud. The First Appellate Court upheld most of the trial court’s findings, except for a minor modification regarding a specific piece of land. The High Court reversed these concurrent findings, concluding that the GPA and sale deeds were fraudulent. The defendants then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: “Proof of execution of document required by law to be attested. If a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution…” This section outlines the procedure for proving the execution of attested documents. The proviso states that it is not necessary to call an attesting witness for a registered document unless its execution is specifically denied.
• Section 69 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: “Proof where no attesting witness found. If no such attesting witness can be found, or if the document purports to have been executed in the United Kingdom, it must be proved that the attestation of one attesting witness at least is in his handwriting, and that the signature of the person executing the document is in the hand writing of that person.” This section deals with the situation where no attesting witness can be found.
• Section 71 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: “Proof when attesting witness denies the execution. If the attesting witness denies or does not recollect the execution of the document, its execution may be proved by other evidence.” This section allows for proving a document’s execution through other evidence if the attesting witness denies or cannot recall it.
• Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: “Presumption as to documents thirty years old. Where any document, purporting or proved to be thirty years old, is produced from any custody which the Court in the particular case considers proper, the Court may presume that the signature and every other part of such document, which purports to be in the handwriting of any particular person, is in that person’s handwriting…” This section allows the court to presume the genuineness of documents that are thirty years old.
• Section 17 of the Limitation Act, 1963: “Effect of fraud or mistake. (1) Where, in the case of any suit or application for which a period of limitation is prescribed by this Act,—(a) the suit or application is based upon the fraud of the defendant or respondent or his agent; or (b) the knowledge of the right or title on which a suit or application is founded is concealed by the fraud of any such person as aforesaid; or (c) the suit or application is for relief from the consequences of a mistake; or (d) where any document necessary to establish the right of the plaintiff or applicant has been fraudulently concealed from him, the period of limitation shall not begin to run until the plaintiff or applicant has discovered the fraud or the mistake or could, with reasonable diligence, have discovered it…” This section deals with the effect of fraud or mistake on the limitation period.
• Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882: Defines “attested” in relation to an instrument.

Arguments

Appellants’ (Defendants’) Arguments:

• The High Court’s interference was unwarranted as the lower courts had properly appreciated the evidence.
• The plea of fraud was not properly raised as per Order 6 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code.
• The plaintiff’s evidence was contradictory, first claiming signatures on blank papers and then denying the signatures on the 1990 GPA.
• The 1990 GPA was executed on stamp papers, disproving the claim of signatures on blank papers.
• The existence of the 1963 GPA did not negate the need for the 1990 GPA, as the 1963 GPA was a joint one, while the 1990 GPA was specific to the plaintiff’s share.
• The plaintiff’s witness (PW4), the scribe, confirmed preparing the documents as per the plaintiff’s instructions.
• The signatures of the attesting witness, Teja Singh, were proven genuine by a handwriting expert (DW7).
• The plaintiff’s address was incorrectly mentioned in the 1990 GPA, but the plaintiff was residing at that address at the time.
• Consideration for the sales was duly passed on to the plaintiff.
• The subsequent purchasers verified the title deeds and the genuineness of the 1990 GPA before purchasing the property.

Respondent’s (Plaintiff’s) Arguments:

• The High Court rightly reversed the decisions of the lower courts, which were against the evidence and settled law.
• The 1990 GPA was fraudulent, with discrepancies in address, date of execution, and the scribe’s testimony.
• The scribe (PW4) failed to identify the plaintiff and was known to defendant No. 4 since school.
• The attesting witnesses were not known to the plaintiff.
• The reason for executing the 1990 GPA (being a woman) was illogical as it was in favor of another woman.
• The plaintiff’s photograph and thumb impression were not affixed on the GPA, suggesting impersonation.
• The handwriting expert (PW10) opined that the signatures were a result of copied forgery.
• The consideration for the sale deeds was never passed on to the plaintiff.
• The defendants mortgaged the joint lands multiple times, lacking the means to purchase the lands.
• The subsequent purchasers did not verify the genuineness of the 1990 GPA.
• The defendants were in a fiduciary relationship with the plaintiff, and the burden of proof was on them to show no fraud.

The innovativeness in the argument by the plaintiff was that the plaintiff tried to show that the defendants were in a fiduciary relationship with her and hence the burden of proof would be on them to show that no fraud was committed.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

1. Whether the suits filed by the plaintiff were within limitation?
2. Whether the 1990 GPA and sale deeds dated 29.06.1990 and 03.07.1990 purported to have been executed by the plaintiff are a result of fraud and forgery or whether the same had been executed by the plaintiff herself?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court followed Prem Singh and Ors. v. Birbal and Ors. [CITATION: (2006) 5 SCC 353]* to establish that a registered document is presumed to be validly executed, placing the onus of proof on the challenger.
• The Supreme Court followed Anil Rishi v. Gurbaksh Singh [CITATION: (2006) 5 SCC 558]* to clarify that merely pleading a fiduciary relationship is not sufficient to shift the burden of proof; tangible evidence is required.
• The Supreme Court followed Satya Gupta (Smt.) alias Madhu Gupta v. Brijesh Kumar [CITATION: (1998) 6 SCC 423]* to emphasize that the High Court cannot reverse findings of fact in a second appeal merely because another view is possible.
• The Supreme Court followed Damodar v. State of Rajasthan [CITATION: (2004) 12 SCC 336]* to highlight that a hypersensitive approach should not be taken when evaluating evidence, especially with delays.
• The Supreme Court followed Jagdish Chand Sharma v. Narain Singh Saini (dead) through legal representatives & Ors. [CITATION: (2015) 8 SCC 615]* to emphasize the strict interpretation of Section 71 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
• The Supreme Court followed Aloka Bose v. Parmatma Devi and Ors. [CITATION: (2009) 2 SCC 582]* to establish that the signature of the vendee is not mandatory in a sale deed.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the lack of concrete evidence of fraud presented by the plaintiff. The court emphasized that the burden of proof lies on the party alleging fraud, and the plaintiff failed to discharge this burden. The court also gave weight to the fact that the disputed documents were registered, which carries a presumption of validity. The court also considered the testimony of the scribe (PW4) and the attesting witnesses, which supported the defendants’ case. The court also noted that the plaintiff did not challenge the 1963 GPA, which was also a registered document. The court also noted that the plaintiff failed to prove the existence of a fiduciary relationship between her and the defendants, and thus the burden of proof did not shift to them.

Logical Reasoning

The court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them, emphasizing that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence to support her claims of fraud. The court also noted that the High Court had erred in reversing the concurrent findings of the lower courts based on surmises and conjectures.

The Supreme Court held that the plaintiff failed to prove that the 1990 GPA and the subsequent sale deeds were a result of fraud or forgery. The court emphasized that the burden of proof lies on the party alleging fraud, and the plaintiff failed to discharge this burden. The court also noted that the documents were registered and that there was sufficient evidence to support their validity. The court also held that the suits were barred by limitation, as the plaintiff had failed to prove fraud, which would have extended the limitation period.

The Supreme Court reasoned that since the plaintiff could not establish the existence of fraud, the limitation period would begin from the date of the execution of the documents and not from the date of the alleged discovery of fraud. The court further reasoned that the plaintiff failed to prove that the defendants were in a fiduciary relationship with her, and thus the burden of proof did not shift to them.

The Supreme Court observed that the High Court had erred in reversing the concurrent findings of the trial court and the first appellate court on the basis of surmises and conjectures.

The court’s decision was unanimous, with both Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari agreeing on the outcome.

“There is a presumption that a registered document is validly executed. A registered document, therefore, prima facie would be valid in law. The onus of proof, thus, would be on a person who leads evidence to rebut the presumption.”

“Pleading is not evidence, far less proof. Issues are raised on the basis of the pleadings. The defendant-appellant having not admitted or acknowledged the fiduciary relationship between the parties, indisputably, the relationship between the parties itself would be an issue.”

“In the present cases, the disputed documents are registered. We are, therefore, guided by the settled legal principle that a document is presumed to be genuine if the same is registered.”

Key Takeaways

• A registered document carries a presumption of validity, and the burden of proof lies on the party challenging it.
• Allegations of fraud must be supported by concrete evidence, not just surmises or conjectures.
• A fiduciary relationship must be proven with tangible evidence to shift the burden of proof.
• The limitation period for challenging a document begins from the date of execution, unless fraud is proven.
• High Courts should not reverse concurrent findings of lower courts in second appeals based on mere possibilities or alternative views.

This judgment reinforces the importance of the validity of registered documents and the need for concrete evidence when alleging fraud. It also clarifies the burden of proof in cases involving fiduciary relationships and the limitation period for challenging documents.

Directions

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court’s judgment, and restored the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a registered document carries a presumption of validity, and the burden of proof lies on the party challenging it. This case does not change any previous position of law but reinforces the existing principles.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Rattan Singh vs. Nirmal Gill underscores the importance of adhering to legal procedures and providing concrete evidence when challenging registered documents. The court’s ruling upholds the validity of the 1990 GPA and subsequent sale deeds, emphasizing that mere allegations of fraud are insufficient to overturn these transactions. This case serves as a reminder of the need for due diligence and the legal implications of registered documents in property disputes.