MANIK MAJUMDER AND OTHERS v. DIPAK KUMAR SAHA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & OTHERS

p. 183 Copy page pinpoint

(DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & OTHERS [B. V. NAGARATHNA, J.]

21. XXX XXX A

22. XXX XXX

23. XXX XXX

24Copy pinpoint24. XXX XXX

25Copy pinpoint25. XXX XXX B

26Copy pinpoint26. For reasons, which we have indicated, Section 32(c) read with Section 33 and Section 34(2)(c) are interrelated and they would have no application in regard to the document presented for registration by a power of attorney holder who is also the executant of the document. In other words, there is really no need C for the production of the original power of attorney, when the document is presented for registration by the person standing in the shoes of the second defendant in this case as he would be covered by the provisions of Section 32(a) as he has executed the document though on the strength of the power of attorney. To D make it even further clear, the inquiry contemplated under the Registration Act, cannot extend to question as to whether the person who executed the document in his capacity of the power of attorney holder of the principal, was indeed having a valid power of attorney or not to execute the document or not.” E (Underlining by me) In short, the law laid down in Amar Nath (supra) supports the position that production of the original power of attorney is not an indispensable requirement to establish the validity of execution of a sale deed. It would therefore follow that production of a power of attorney is not a necessary requirement to prove a sale deed before a court of law executed through a power of attorney.

24. Section 67 of the Evidence Act deals with proof of documents such as a sale deed as in the instant case. The proof of signature or the handwriting of the executant on a document is sufficient to prove a document which is the sale deed dated 29th October, 1968, in the instant case. There is no dispute that the said sale deed is not signed by plaintiff No.2 or that it is not his signature or that he is not the executor of the document. The admission of the signature of the said document by plaintiff No.2 is proof of the signature on the document which is sufficient for proof of the document of sale deed of sale in favour of plaintiff No.1. H

p. 184 Copy page pinpoint

A Further, the same is a registered sale deed which is a document conveying title. Hence, the plaintiff No.1 has acquired title from plaintiff No.2 and from the original owner of the land in question. Therefore, under the circumstances, plaintiff No.1 has proved her right, title and interest in the land in question. There is no contra evidence produced by the defendants so as to defeat the validity of the sale deeds. The said documents speak for themselves. Therefore, there is no substance in the contentions of the appellants arising under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908. Thus, plaintiff No.1 has acquired title to the land in question. Further, when a sale deed is executed on the strength of deed of power of attorney, the non-production of the deed of power of attorney in the suit is not fatal to the case of the plaintiff.

25. The appellants-defendants herein contended that that there may be a statutory presumption as per Section 60 of the Registration Act, 1908, only where all other requirements of execution of sale deed are complied with and there is no doubt as to the genuineness of the power of attorney. In the present case, the sale deed dated 03rd September, 1968 was executed on the strength of the power of attorney which was executed in conformity with Section 33 (1) (c) of the Registration Act, 1908 because the power of attorney has been duly executed before the 1st Class Magistrate, Komilla, East Pakistan as noted from the two sale deeds. There is no contra evidence produced by defendants in that regard. E Since the requirements of execution of a sale deed are duly complied with, and there is no reason to doubt the recitals of the sale deed which has been proved in accordance with law, it would follow that the statutory presumption under Section 60 of the Registration Act could be invoked in the instant case.

F 26. It is trite that registration of a document is a solemn act of parties and the recitals of a registered document are presumed to be valid unless such a presumption is rebutted by strong evidence to the contrary, vide Ishwar Dass Jain vs. Sohan Lal, (2000) 1 SCC 434. This is because, as already stated, the document speaks for itself. G In Chottey Lal vs. The Collector of Moradabad (supra) the Privy Council considered the question as to the presumption of validity of a power of attorney which formed the basis of a registered mortgage deed which was later challenged. The Privy Council noted that since the sub-registrar had accepted the document for registration, it is prima- H facie evidence that the conditions have been satisfied and after registration

p. 185 Copy page pinpoint

(DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & OTHERS [B. V. NAGARATHNA, J.]

of the document, the burden of proving any alleged infirmity rests on the person who challenges the registration. Similarly, in Jugraj Singh and Anr. vs. Jaswant Singh and Ors., 1970 (2) SCC 386, this Court reiterated the legal position as to the presumption of regularity of official acts, and held that it would be presumed that a sub-registrar registering a document would have proceeded with the registration only on satisfying himself as to the fact that the person who was executing the document was the proper person.

27Copy pinpoint27. Reliance may also be placed on the decision of this Court in Rattan Singh and Ors. vs. Nirmal Gill and Ors., AIR 2021 SC 899. In the said case, the issue pertained to the validity of a general power of attorney (hereinafter, “GPA”) and consequently of the sale deed executed on the strength of the GPA. The plaintiff therein, being the executor of the GPA contended that the GPA was obtained fraudulently and was therefore invalid. This Court, while holding that no case of fraud was made out, upheld the validity of the GPA and the sale deed executed on the strength of the GPA. The relevant observations of this Court as to the presumption of validity of documents and burden of proof required to rebut such presumption, are extracted as under: “The presumption in favour of a 30-year old document is a rebuttable presumption. Nothing prevented the Plaintiff to rebut the presumption by leading appropriate evidence in order to disprove the same. Since the Plaintiff failed to do so, the said document would be binding on the Plaintiff. As a matter of fact, the parties had acted upon the terms of the said document without any demur since 1963 and it was, therefore, not open to resile therefrom at this distance of time. Hence, the trial Court was right in holding the 1963 GPA, to be a genuine document.”

28Copy pinpoint28. In short, it has been authoritatively laid down by this Court that a registered document carries with it, by virtue of it being registered, the presumption as to the authority of the person executing it. In the present case, the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court failed to treat the endorsement made by the District Sub-Registrar on the body of the sale deed, as evidence in respect of the authority of Plaintiff No. 2 to execute the sale deed. This is to be considered in light of the fact that at no point of time did the original owner namely, Braja Mohan Dey dispute the execution of power of attorney in favour of Plaintiff No. 2. H

p. 186 Copy page pinpoint

29Copy pinpoint29. Prima-facie, the endorsement made on the sale deed dated 03rd September, 1968, could be considered as determinative evidence of the conveyance of title to the suit property by its original owner, especially where the defendants have not set up a case to establish any independent title over the suit property. When such a presumption arises, the onus would be on a person who challenges such presumption, to successfully B rebut it, vide Prem Singh and Ors. vs. Birbal and Ors., (2006) 5 SCC 353. In that context, the question that would arise is, whether, the defendants have rebutted the presumption of validity of the sale deed dated 03rd September, 1968. In order to answer this question, the following facts may be considered: C (i) Trial Court and First Appellate Court have concurrently found that the defendants do not have any title over the suit land and against such finding the defendants have not preferred an appeal. They have thus accepted this finding which has attained finality. D (ii) The original owner namely, Braja Mohan Dey has not initiated any proceeding to dispute the execution of power of attorney in favour of Plaintiff No. 2. (iii) The order of the Sadar Munsiff dated 17th July, 1974, in T.S. 69/1974 records that by way of a sale deed dated 03rd E September, 1968, Plaintiff No. 2 had purchased the suit property and was paying municipal taxes as the owner of the premises which finding is binding on the parties herein as the same has not been upset by any Court of law. Sarat Chandra Majumdar, original defendant No. 1 in the present suit, was the plaintiff therein. (iv) Notwithstanding the fact that the original defendant had become aware of the sale deed dated 03rd September, 1968 and of the power of attorney that formed the basis of such sale deed, no steps were taken by the Defendant to challenge Plaintiff No. 2’s title over the suit property. It was only in the written statement filed in the present suit that it was vaguely claimed that Sarat Chandra Majumdar was the title holder of the suit property and Plaintiff No. 2 was a tenant therein. This, without there being any legal basis or evidence. H

p. 187 Copy page pinpoint

(DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & OTHERS [B. V. NAGARATHNA, J.]

In light of the said facts, it can be stated that the defendant has not rebutted the presumption of validity of the sale deed dated 03 rd September, 1968.

30Copy pinpoint30. In short, there is no reason to disbelieve the recitals contained in the registered sale deed dated 03rd September, 1968 merely on the ground that the document conferring power of attorney in favour of plaintiff no. 2 was not produced before the Trial Court. In the instant case, the High Court was therefore right in holding that when a document has been duly registered, there is a presumption of correctness and it can be rebutted only by strong evidence to the contrary. But the defendants have not led any evidence in order to rebut the presumption as might be drawn on the basis of the said endorsement on the body of the sale deed No.1010394, dated 03.09.1968 accepting original plaintiff no.2 as the attorney of the original owner, Braja Mohan Dey. The same is a vital piece of evidence which has been ignored by the Trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court. The High Court is further right in holding that original plaintiff no.2 was duly nominated and constituted as the attorney of Braja Mohan Dey (original owner of the suit land) and on the strength of the said power of attorney, plaintiff No.2 transferred land in favour of himself. As the absolute owner, plaintiff No.2 sold the said land to plaintiff No.1. Thus, plaintiff no.1 had every right to recover the said suit land, description of which has been provided in the Schedule (C) of the plaint by removing and demolishing all obstructions from the defendants. The High Court was therefore right in decreeing the suit. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment of the High Court of Tripura in Regular Second Appeal No. 01 F of 2005, by which, the judgment and decree dated 26th August, 2004 passed in Title Appeal No. 02 of 1996 by the First Appellate Court in Title Appeal No. 02 of 1996 affirming the dismissal of Title Suit No. 201 of 1985 by the Asst. District Judge No.1, Tripura has been set-aside, is affirmed. G

31Copy pinpoint31. Parties are directed to bear their respective costs.

Nidhi Jain Matter referred to larger Bench. (Assisted by : Shashwat Jain, LCRA)