Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4.7 The plaint, in the suit goes on to point out several circumstances which would substantiate the plaintiffs' stand that the Power of Attorney was a forged and a fraudulent document and no sale consequential to such a document could have been entered into. In order to better understand the factual aspects, circumstances laid out clause by clause in the plaint deserve reproduction. They are:

"(a) It was difficult to believe that property, market value of which is Rs.20 crores is sold for a consideration of Rs. 12 lakhs. Properties of both suits put together are worth more than Rs. 53 crores sold for a total consideration of Rs.33 lakhs.

6. Based on these sets of evidences and on the arguments advanced by the learned Advocates for the parties, the learned trial Judge allowed the suit. The reasonings advanced by the learned trial judge in coming to such a conclusion in a nutshell are as under:

6.1 The Learned Trial Judge observed that the basis of the entire controversy at hand was the Power Of HC-NIC Page 18 of 99 Created On Tue Sep 19 00:19:59 IST 2017 Attorney. On the basis of the evidence on record, if the Power Of Attorney is held to be a genuine document, then the plaintiff would be non-suited. In the event the Power Of Attorney is held to be a forged and a fraudulent document then the plaintiff would be entitled to have the suit decreed in his favour. Keeping this in mind, the Trial Court examined the evidence on record to reach at the findings and the conclusion that it did.

6.18 The Trial Court negated the defendants' contention that no notice was given by the plaintiff to cancel the Power Of Attorney. Moreover, if the plaintiffs found the deposit of Rs.4,00,000 from the defendants unexplained, no steps were taken to return the same to the party. According to the learned trial judge, when the case of the plaintiffs was that the Power Of Attorney itself was bogus and for which even criminal proceedings were taken, it cannot be said that it was necessary to give a notice for cancellation. The document itself was based on deceit and fraud. The defendants had the onus to prove that the Power of Attorney was absolutely genuine and not fraudulent. Having failed to discharge the onus to prove so, it has to be held that the Power Of Attorney was nothing but a fraudulent document 6.19 The Trial Judge therefore held that even the sale of land in favour of defendant No.3 cannot be said to valid. The defendant cannot be said to be a purchaser for value without notice. The objection of the defendants that the suit was beyond time was also rejected. The date of the Power Of Attorney being 22/1/2010, the suit was filed on HC-NIC Page 27 of 99 Created On Tue Sep 19 00:19:59 IST 2017 1/4/2010 and therefore within three years.

36. Having held the Power of Attorney to be an invalid document, the consequential transaction of sale is also bad. The sale deed dated 22.02.2010 should and is also accordingly declared invalid. The plaintiffs, in one of the grounds in the plaint have stated that the theory that the Power of Attorney was executed to facilitate the lady members of the family, who would not have to visit the Sub-Registrar's office. If that be so, rather than enter into a Power Of Attorney a Sale Deed could have been executed. That the Power Of Attorney is a fraudulent document becomes apparent when even before an actual sale takes place, at the stage of execution of a deed of Power Of Attorney to sell a piece of land, a vendor is already identified and such a vendor is given possession. Such recitations in a Power Of Attorney present unusual facts. If at the stage of execution of a Power Of Attorney itself, a vendor was identified and possession was handed over, was it not, the question goes, plausible and possible to enter and execute a Sale Deed rather than a Power Of Attorney. If the case of defendant no.1 was that in order to see that the seller's family would not have to come on multiple occasions, a Power Of Attorney would save such a situation, then should it not have been a natural act of executing a Sale Deed, once the vendor was identified and possession handed over at the stage of execution of the Power Of Attorney? Recitations in the Power Of Attorney state that the Power Of Attorney holder has sold the lands to Sumanbhai Patel, the defendant no.1 and HC-NIC Page 92 of 99 Created On Tue Sep 19 00:19:59 IST 2017 possession also is handed over. This, according to Shri Soparkar needs to be appreciated in light of the facts that after the Power Of Attorney was executed on 22/1/2010, first Sale Deed was executed in favour of defendant No.1 on 22/2/2010 and the second one by the defendant no.2 in favour of defendant no.3 in quick succession on 23/3/2010. All these circumstances point to the fact that apparently the Power Of Attorney was a fraud. The Power of Attorney was with an identified seller, then why was not a sale deed directly executed. This also supports the plaintiff's case.