Registered document has lot of sanctity attached to it — Evidence Act, S. 74.

29 Registered document has lot of sanctity attached to it — Evidence Act, S. 74.

[Shanti Budhiya Vesta Patel & Ors v. Nirmala Jayprakash Tiwari & Ors., AIR 2010 SC 2132]

The dispute arose between the parties in respect of suit property wherein the respondents claimed to be the owner by adverse possession. There were several appeals and counter claims filed before the High Court. One of the respondent No. 9 who was holding power of attorney for the appellant entered into consent term with other respondents. The High Court disposed of the appeals after taking on record the consent terms. The appellant thereafter filed civil application praying for recalling the aforesaid orders alleging that fraud had been played upon the High Court by filing the consent terms. Stating that consent term was filed without knowledge and consent of the appellants.

The Supreme Court held that all the power of attorney were irrevocable and duly registered for valuable consideration. By executing the power of attorney in favour of respondent No. 9 the appellants had consciously and willingly appointed, nominated constitute and authorised respondent No. 9 as their lawful power of attorney to do certain deed, thing and matter. The appellants could not be said to have any right to assail the consent decree passed by the High Court.

It is settled position of law that the burden to prove that a compromise arrived at under Order 23, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure was tainted by coercion or fraud lies upon the part who alleges the same. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellants, on whom the burden lay, have failed to do so. Although, the application for recall did allege some coercion, it could not be said to be a case of established coercion. Since the particulars in support of the allegation of fraud or coercion have not been properly pleaded as required by law, the same must fail.

Further, all the powers of attorney executed in favour of respondent No. 9 as also all the deeds and documents entered into between the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants and respondent No. 9 were duly registered with the office of the Sub-Registrar. Neither any document nor any of the powers of attorney was ever got cancelled by the appellants.

The registered document has a lot of sanctity attached to it and this sanctity cannot be allowed to be lost without following the proper procedure.