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.