Mallika v. R. Nallathambi
Background
The appellant purchased two parcels of agricultural land in Coimbatore in 1996 and later executed two registered General Powers of Attorney (GPAs) in favour of the respondents (brothers), which she claimed were given only as security for loans. She alleged the respondents misused these GPAs to execute sale deeds transferring the land to their relatives, and that she discovered this only in 2008 while inspecting Sub-Registrar records, despite having allegedly repaid the loans. The respondents countered that the transactions were genuine sales with consideration duly paid and acknowledged, and that the suit was barred by limitation. The Trial Court had ruled in the appellant's favour, but the First Appellate Court reversed this, and the Madras High Court upheld that reversal in second appeal, leading to this Supreme Court appeal.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings of the First Appellate Court and High Court against the appellant. It found her failure to enter the witness box herself to substantiate allegations of fraud and forgery, despite having "special knowledge" of the facts, justified an adverse inference against her. The Court also noted that mutation entries and registered sale transactions had remained unchallenged for nearly a decade, and that her explanation for the delayed discovery of the transactions in 2008 (a decade after the 1998 sale deeds) was not credible, especially since she and her husband were themselves in the real estate business. Since the First Appellate Court, as the final court on facts, had reasonably reappreciated the evidence and the High Court found no substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC, the Supreme Court found no perversity or jurisdictional error warranting interference and dismissed the appeal.
Lesson Learnt
A party alleging fraud or forgery in a property transaction must personally testify and produce evidence (including expert evidence, where relevant) to substantiate the claim, failing to do so, especially when the party has "special knowledge" of the disputed facts, invites an adverse inference; unexplained, prolonged delay (here, about a decade) in challenging a transaction can also be fatal to such a claim.