Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.23 seconds)Bellachi vs Pakeeran on 23 March, 2009
In the light of ratio relied by learned counsel for the
appellant as laid down in 'Bellachi (Dead) by L.R. v. Pakeeran'
2009(12) SCC 95, learned counsel for the respondent cannot take any
advantage out of the ratio laid down in 'Smt.
Shiv Charan vs Siri Ram And Anr. on 11 February, 2008
Padmawati and others
v. Smt. Indrawati (since deceased) and others' 2014(3) Law
Herald 2430 in view of the fact that the initial onus lay upon the
plaintiff to have established the fakeness of the General Power of
Attorney and he failed to do so and mere denial of signatures unless
and until cogently and substantially established does not help the case
of the plaintiff in terms of 'Shiv Charan v. Siri Ram and another'
2008(3) RCR (Civil) 454 so argued by the learned counsel for the
respondent.
Narbada Devi Gupta vs Birendra Kumar Jaiswal And Anr on 3 November, 2003
The law laid down in 'Narbada Devi Gupta v. Birendra
Kumar Jaiswal and another' 2003(4) RCR (Civil) 683 does not
come to the aid of the plaintiff in view of the fact that it is own
document challenged by the plaintiff who has relied upon this
document and therefore it was well within his powers to have got his
signatures compared with the Power of Attorney Ex.P1 to establish his
case and therefore, even his inaction regarding this fact goes to his
RATTAN PAL SINGH
2015.02.02 12:22
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court
RSA No.4082 of 2012 (O&M) 10
detrimental.
Gopal, Krishnaji Ketkar vs Mahomed Haji Latif & Ors on 19 April, 1968
No benefit can be derived out of the ratio laid down in the
judgment of 'Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar v. Mohamed Haji Latif and
others' 1968 AIR (SC) 1413 and 'Nathu Ram v. Tilak Raj and
others' 2010(4) PLR 552 by learned counsel for the respondent as
the very initial document on which entire case revolves has not been
proved and established to be an outcome of forgery or any other
illegality and since the plaintiff has failed to prove forgery as enlivened
in 'Smt.
Section 54 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 16 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Rangammal vs Kuppuswami & Anr on 13 May, 2011
Appreciating the arguments and the rival contentions,
since it is the plaintiff who has knocked at the doors of the Court and
therefore, onus lay heavily upon the plaintiff to have established its
case by preponderance of probabilities. It is well enshrined principle of
RATTAN PAL SINGH
2015.02.02 12:22
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court
RSA No.4082 of 2012 (O&M) 5
law that the plaintiff must stand on his own legs and can by no means
take advantage of the weaknesses of the case of other side. Reliance
in this regard is placed on 'Rangammal v. Kuppuswami and
another' reported in AIR 2011 SC 2344. Moreover, as per Section
101 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 a duty is cast upon the person
who desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability
or to prove the existence of that very fact so as to romp home with the
case. Thus, burden of proof is initially upon the plaintiff to establish it
so. It is the pleaded case that General Power of Attorney Ex.P1 was
given by the plaintiff in favour of Jagjit Singh and it was on the basis of
this agency the agent has acted on behalf of the principal in bringing
about a sale by virtue of sale deed Ex.P2. The alleged General Power
of Attorney is a registered document dated 11.08.1993 and being a
registered document as per the settled law is in itself a notice to the
people at large. The sale deed has been executed on 04.07.2001 i.e.
after the period of almost eight years of giving of the Power of Attorney
whereas suit has been filed on 30.09.2005 i.e. after four years of
execution of the sale deed.
The Limitation Act, 1963
Sulakhan Singh vs Smt.Pal Kaur on 7 December, 2010
Since the stand of the plaintiff that the Power of Attorney is
an outcome of fraud and forgery and there is no element of fraud or
forgery proved on the record and for which reliance has been placed
upon 'Sulakhan Singh v. Smt. Pal Kaur' 2011 (2) PLR 259 and 'Har
Narain and another v. Revti Parkash and others' 2012(2) PLR 409
by the learned counsel for the appellant which harbors on the fact that
there should be a clear evidence regarding fraud or forgery and that
the registered document along with certificate of registration in itself
RATTAN PAL SINGH
2015.02.02 12:22
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Punjab & Haryana High Court
RSA No.4082 of 2012 (O&M) 9
prima-facie establishes to be an outcome of genuineness. Even to the
very query of the Court, learned counsel for the respondent could not
substantiate if there has been in any manner undue influence over the
plaintiff in procuring the General Power of Attorney Ex.P1 and there is
no element of even undue influence in terms of Section 16 of the
Indian Contract Act, 1872 established on the record.