Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. Defendants filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC, inter alia contending that a careful perusal of the plaint allegations unequivocally and unambiguously suggest that the sale deed dated 7/6/12 has been executed by defendant no.1 in favour of defendant no.2 (Kamar Singh Rawat Vs. Makhan Singh Rawat & Ors.) by virtue of registered power of attorney dated 9/5/12. Undisputedly, the power of attorney bears the signatures of planitff, whereunder defendant no.1 is authorized to execute the sale deed in respect of the suit land and, accordingly, the sale deed has been executed in favour of defendant no.2. However, it is alleged that the power of attorney is prepared fraudulently without knowledge and consent of the plaintiff, hence sale deed in question is void, illegal and ineffective. It is contended that law is well settled to the effect that there is a presumption that registered document is a validly executed document. The onus of proof would be on the person who disputes the existence of such document and, therefore, is required to lead evidence to rebut such presumption. As such, it is a question of fact to be determined by the trial Court on the evidence led by the parties. Under such circumstances, the registered sale deed executed with the authority of registered power of attorney cannot be said to be a void document and at the most can be a voidable document. There shall be presumption that plaintiff has executed the sale deed, hence the plaintiff is required to pay ad volarem court fee on the valuation done in the suit, if he (Kamar Singh Rawat Vs. Makhan Singh Rawat & Ors.) wants to avoid the sale deed.

6. Per contra plaintiff has contended that since he is not a party to the sale deed, hence, to seek declaration that the sale deed is void, he is only required to pay fixed court fee.

7. The trial Court has considered the aforesaid contentions at length and concluded that the registered sale deed in question, which is alleged to have been executed on the strength of registered power of attorney fraudulently, is a voidable document and, therefore, ad volarem court fee is required to be paid to avoid the sale deed. Moreover, the plaintiff himself has valued the suit at Rs.36,98,000/-, therefore the trial Court called upon the plaintiff to pay ad volarem Court fee under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court-fees Act, 1870 (for short "the Act") on the valuation of the suit. Being aggrieved thereby, the instant petition has been filed.

"There is a presumption that 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. In the instant case, respondent no.1 has not been able to rebut the said presumption".

11. The registered sale deed dated 7/6/12 is executed on the strength of aforesaid power of attorney by defendant no.1 in favour of defendant no.2. In view of the aforesaid settled legal position, there would be a presumption that plaintiff has executed the sale deed in favour of defendant no.2. Unless of course, such presumption is displaced by leading evidence to the contrary and burden is discharged by the plaintiff. Hence, the trial Court has rightly found that the registered sale deed in question is a voidable document at the instance of the plaintiff. Under such circumstances, the trial Court (Kamar Singh Rawat Vs. Makhan Singh Rawat & Ors.) was justified having ordered for payment of ad volarem court fee under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Act on the valuation done in the suit at Rs.36,98,000/- to avoid the sale deed. The ratio of the decisions on the aforesaid proposition decided in 2010 (12) SCC 112, 2012 (5) MPHT 276, 2009 (3) MPHT 113, 2011 (2) MPHT 488, 2010 (1) MPHT 338, (2006)5 SCC 353 and (2009)12 SCC 101 support the conclusion drawn by this Court.