Legal Dispute Over Property: Supreme Court Ruling on Alleged Fraud in Power of Attorney and Sale Deeds

The legal battle between Rattan Singh & Ors. and Nirmal Gill & Ors. arose over a dispute regarding the validity of a General Power of Attorney (GPA) and subsequent sale deeds executed in favor of certain defendants. The case delves into allegations of fraud and misrepresentation, with the plaintiff, Joginder Kaur (now deceased, represented by her legal heir Nirmal Gill), asserting that the said documents were forged and that she had never executed them.

The central issue revolved around whether the execution of the GPA in 1990 and subsequent sale deeds were genuine or the result of fraudulent misrepresentation. The trial court initially dismissed the plaintiff’s claims, stating that the documents in question were properly executed and registered. However, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana reversed this decision, holding that the findings of the lower courts were erroneous and that the evidence indicated a fraudulent intent on the part of the defendants.

Background of the Case

The dispute traces back to the inheritance of Harbans Singh’s property, who passed away in 1963, leaving behind land in Nawanshahr, Jalandhar, and Hoshiarpur. His daughter from his first marriage, Joginder Kaur (plaintiff), and four stepbrothers (defendants) inherited the estate in equal shares. The conflict arose when the plaintiff challenged a General Power of Attorney (GPA) allegedly executed by her in 1990, as well as multiple sale deeds executed based on that GPA.

Plaintiff’s Arguments

The plaintiff argued that she had never executed the 1990 GPA and that her stepbrothers, in connivance with their wives, had committed fraud by obtaining her signatures on blank papers under the guise of processing inheritance-related documents. She asserted that she only became aware of the fraudulent transactions in 2001 when a family member informed her during a wedding.

Defendants’ Arguments

The defendants, on the other hand, contended that the plaintiff had willingly executed the GPA and sale deeds. They claimed that she had personally instructed a scribe to draft the documents, which were then registered in the Sub-Registrar’s office. They further argued that the plaintiff was well aware of the transactions and that the alleged claims of fraud were an afterthought.

Key Judicial Findings

Trial Court’s Verdict

The trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims, stating that:

• The documents were registered and thus presumed to be genuine.
• The plaintiff’s argument that she had unknowingly signed blank papers lacked evidentiary support.
• The witnesses supporting the plaintiff’s claims were not credible.

High Court’s Reversal

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, however, reversed this decision, highlighting:

• The existence of discrepancies in the GPA, including incorrect addresses and suspicious alterations.
• The improbability that a woman who claimed to be unable to manage property would execute a GPA in favor of another woman rather than a male relative.
• The absence of proper witness examination regarding the execution of the disputed documents.

Supreme Court’s Final Judgment

The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the case, reinstated the findings of the trial court, concluding:

• The documents in question were properly registered and bore the necessary endorsements.
• The plaintiff’s claims of fraud were unsupported by tangible evidence.
• The testimony of the scribe, who was a neutral witness, confirmed the execution of the GPA and sale deeds.
• The burden of proof rested on the plaintiff, which she failed to discharge satisfactorily.

The Court emphasized that mere allegations of fraud, without substantive proof, could not override the presumption of validity attached to registered documents. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, and the High Court’s judgment was set aside.

Conclusion

This judgment reiterates the legal principle that once a document is registered, it carries a presumption of genuineness. Allegations of fraud must be backed by concrete evidence, and courts should not overturn factual findings without compelling reasons. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case reaffirms the importance of documentary proof and the necessity for parties to establish claims based on credible evidence.

Petitioner Name: Rattan Singh & Ors..
Respondent Name: Nirmal Gill & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari.
Place Of Incident: Punjab.
Judgment Date: 16-11-2020.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Rattan Singh & Ors. vs Nirmal Gill & Ors. Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 16-11-2020.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Property Disputes
See all petitions in Succession and Wills
See all petitions in Specific Performance
See all petitions in Damages and Compensation
See all petitions in Contract Disputes
See all petitions in Judgment by A M Khanwilkar
See all petitions in Judgment by Dinesh Maheshwari
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments November 2020
See all petitions in 2020 judgments

See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category