Registered Documents Command Compelling Presumption of Validity; Burden to Prove Fraud or Pardanashin Status Rests Heavily on Challenger

The plaintiff/appellant filed a suit for declaration and injunction, alleging that a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) dated 17.04.1984 in favor of defendant No. 2 was obtained via fraud and misrepresentation.

Consequently, she challenged the sale deed dated 02.12.1988 executed by defendant No. 2 (as attorney) in favor of defendant No. 1.

The plaintiff claimed she was an illiterate woman deserted by her husband, unaware of English, and was misled into signing blank papers on the pretext of attesting mutations.

Both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court dismissed the suit, finding the SPA and subsequent sale validly executed.

The matter arrived before the High Court in a Second Appeal.

1. Whether the Power of Attorney (Ext.DW3/1/A) allegedly executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant No.2 is illegal and invalid, having been procured by him fraudulently.

The Court applied the principle that a "pardanashin lady" protection is unavailable to women habitually interacting with the world or attending registration offices, as established in Ismail Mussajee Mookerdum v. Hafiz Boo.

It relied on Section 60(2) of the Registration Act, which creates a formidable presumption of validity for registered documents, shifting the burden of proof to the challenger (Prem Singh v. Birbal; Rattan Singh v. Nirmal Gill).

The Court further applied the doctrine from Mallika v. R. Nallathambi, stating that foundational facts of fraud must be established by the claimant before the burden of proof shifts to the beneficiary.

Under Section 114 of the Evidence Act, there is a presumption of regularity regarding acts done by public officials in their discharge of duties.

The Court observed that the plaintiff was not a "rural rustic woman" entitled to special protection, as her own cross-examination revealed she had independently executed multiple sale deeds and visited revenue officials.

Regarding the allegation of signing "blank papers," the Court found it implausible that she would sign for a person she claimed she barely knew.

Crucially, while she claimed ignorance of English, she had signed a "cancellation of power of attorney" (Ext.PW1/A) in English, contradicting her plea.

The Court emphasized that the SPA was a registered document. Witnesses (DW3/1 and DW3/2) confirmed her presence before the Sub-Registrar.

Following Hemalatha (D) v. Tukaram (D), the Court held that the sanctity of registered documents cannot be diluted "at the drop of a hat" without cogent evidence of deceit.

Since the plaintiff failed to provide material particulars of the alleged fraud, the statutory presumption of the SPA’s validity remained unrebutted.

The appeal was dismissed, and the judgments of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court were upheld.