RATTAN SINGH & ORS. versus NIRMAL GILL & ORS. ETC.

Citation: [2020] 12 S.C.R. 422 · Decided: 16-11-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. KHANWILKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
422
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 12 S.C.R.
RATTAN SINGH & ORS.
v.
NIRMAL GILL & ORS. ETC.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 3681-3682 of 2020 etc.)
NOVEMBER 16, 2020
[A.M. KHANWILKAR AND DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Deeds and Documents:
Suits for declaring sale-deeds as illegal and void which were
executed by Power of Attorney-holder of plaintiff and also those
executed by the plaintiff herself – Alleging fraud in execution of
the General Power of Attorney (GPA) and the sale deeds by misusing
the trust reposed in defendants – Trial court dismissed both the
suits – First appellate court partly allowed one of the appeals and
dismissed the other appeal – High Court reversed the finding of the
courts below – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: The disputed
documents were registered and hence are presumed to be genuine –
The initial burden to prove that the subject documents were forged
or product of fraud, was on the plaintiff – Plaintiff failed to prove
the facts of misuse of trust by the defendants – No tangible and
credible evidence was led by the plaintiff to prove that the GPA as
well as the sale deeds were effected by impersonating her – Since
the attesting witness had proved the execution of the sale deeds, the
primary onus upon the plaintiff had not shifted unto the defendants
– The testimony of attesting witness, scribe and other independent
witnesses support the case of defendants – Since the plaintiff could
not establish existence of fraud, the suits were ex-facie barred by
limitation – The views of trial court and appellate court being a
possible view, High Court should not have disturbed the same in
second appeal that too on surmises and conjectures.
Sale deed – Signature of vendee on – Is not mandatory.
Evidence:
Registered document – Evidentiary value – A document is
presumed to be genuine, if it is registered.
   [2020] 12 S.C.R. 422
422
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
423
Standard of proof – In civil disputes – Is preponderance of
probabilities and is not beyond reasonable doubt.
Expert evidence – Nature of – Expert opinions are not a
binding piece of evidence and they need to be corroborated.
Evidence Act, 1872:
s. 90 – 30 years old document – Is presumed to be genuine.
Limitation Act, 1963:
s. 17 – For invoking s. 17, two ingredients have to be pleaded
and duly proved i.e. existence of fraud and discovery of such fraud.
Practice and Procedure:
A hypersensitive approach ought not be taken in cases where
there has been delay in recording evidence.
Words & Phrases:
“attested” – Meaning of, in the context of s. 3 of Transfer of
Property Act, 1882.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD : 1.1 The record reveals that the disputed documents
are registered. It is settled legal principle that a document is
presumed to be genuine if the same is registered. [Para 32][446-
A-C]
Prem Singh and Ors. v. Birbal and Ors. (2006) 5 SCC
353 : [2006] 1 Suppl. SCR 692 – relied on.
1.2 The trial Court had justly placed the initial burden of
proof upon the plaintiff as it was her case that the subject
documents were forged or product of fraud and moreso because
the documents bore her signature. The first appellate Court did
not elaborate on that aspect. Even assuming that the burden had
shifted upon the defendants, the witness identifying signatures
of the dead attesting witness was examined by the defendants.
Therefore, the documents stood proved and the burden was duly
discharged by the defendants.  The High Court, however, went
on to observe that defendants had abused their position of active
RATTAN SINGH & ORS. v. NIRMAL GILL & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
424
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 12 S.C.R.
confidence. For shifting the burden of proof, it would require more
than merely pleading that the relationship is a fiduciary one and
it must be proved by producing tangible evidence. [Paras 40 and
41][448-E-G][449-B-C]
Anil Rishi v. Gurbaksh Singh (2006) 5 SCC 558 : [2006]
1 Suppl. SCR 659 – relied on.
1.3 The defendants enjoyed active confidence of the plaintiff.
It is an admitted position that the plaintiff and defendants always
had cordial relationship and the plaintiff was on visiting terms.
Further, the fact that the defendant Nos. 3 and 4 were cultivating
the joint lands is also not disputed.  Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 were
cultivating the lands along with their father and continued to do
so even after his death. The plaintiff had failed to prove the fact
of misuse of trust by the defendants as such. [Para 42][450-F-H]
1.4 Further, the plaintiff attempted t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.