Manjit Singh & Anr. vs. Nirmal & Ors.
Background
Two sons from a man's first marriage sued for partition of his estate after his death in 2003, claiming he died without a valid will. His second wife and their son claimed he had left everything to the wife by a 2002 will, and that before his death he had also executed a General Power of Attorney (GPA) authorizing her to sell a property in Surya Niketan, Delhi, which she then sold to a third-party buyer. The sons alleged the will, GPA, and sale documents were all forged, given the father's poor health at the time.
Decision Breakdown
The trial court had found the will unproved, but upheld the GPA and the subsequent sale of the Surya Niketan property as validly executed and the buyer as a genuine purchaser in possession, meaning the sons were neither in physical nor constructive possession of that property, and could not maintain a bare partition suit without also claiming possession. On appeal (restricted only to the Surya Niketan property), the High Court held that a registered document carries a legal presumption of valid execution, which the sons failed to rebut: their handwriting expert's report was unreliable, and hospital records showing the father's illness didn't establish he was incapable of executing the GPA or unaware of the later sale (which was executed by his attorney, not requiring his personal presence). The Court also noted the sons had themselves withdrawn their own application to add a claim for possession, undermining their case further, and dismissed the appeal.
Lesson Learnt
A registered document (like a Power of Attorney or sale deed) is presumed to be validly executed, and the burden falls on whoever disputes it to disprove that presumption with solid evidence, and a suit for partition generally cannot succeed unless the plaintiff is either in actual or constructive possession of the property, or specifically also asks the court for possession.