Proof of title requires genuine conveyance and original documents; attorney evidence cannot replace personal knowledge on sham transactions.

Title to immovable property was not proved where the original sale deeds were not produced, their loss and execution were not satisfactorily established, and the surrounding conduct did not support a genuine transfer. Mere registration was held insufficient in these circumstances. A power of attorney holder could not depose to matters within the principal's special knowledge, including consideration and the reality of the transactions, and the absence of the plaintiffs' own testimony justified an adverse inference. The court found the conveyances were sham and fictitious, intended to avoid surplus land consequences, so no title or right to possession passed and the decree in favour of the plaintiffs was set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the plaintiffs proved title and entitlement to possession on the basis of the alleged sale deeds and surrounding conduct; (ii) Whether the plaintiffs' attorney could depose to matters within the special knowledge of the plaintiffs and whether the transactions were sham and fictitious.

Issue (i): Whether the plaintiffs proved title and entitlement to possession on the basis of the alleged sale deeds and surrounding conduct.

Analysis: The alleged original sale deeds were not produced, and the plaintiffs relied only on copies from the record without satisfactorily proving loss, execution, custody, or the surrounding circumstances showing that the documents were acted upon. No credible evidence showed delivery of possession, receipt of lease money, or timely assertion of ownership. The conduct of the parties, including long silence, non-production of originals, non-appearance of the plaintiffs, and failure to seek mutation or possession for years, was inconsistent with a genuine conveyance intended to pass title. Mere registration of the sale deeds did not, in these circumstances, establish transfer of title.

Conclusion: The plaintiffs failed to prove a genuine transfer of title or entitlement to possession.

Issue (ii): Whether the plaintiffs' attorney could depose to matters within the special knowledge of the plaintiffs and whether the transactions were sham and fictitious.

Analysis: A power of attorney holder may act for the principal, but cannot depose to facts exclusively within the principal's personal knowledge. As the transactions and consideration were matters within the plaintiffs' special knowledge, the attorney's testimony could not substitute for their own evidence. In the absence of the plaintiffs' testimony and corroboration, adverse inference was warranted. The surrounding circumstances supported the conclusion that the sale deeds were not intended to confer absolute title and were sham transactions entered into to avoid surplus land consequences.

Conclusion: The attorney's evidence was insufficient, and the transactions were sham and fictitious.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the decree in favour of the plaintiffs was set aside, and the suit stood dismissed after the Court found that the alleged conveyances did not confer title.

Ratio Decidendi: A power of attorney holder cannot prove facts within the principal's special knowledge, and where original title documents, possession, and conduct consistent with a genuine transfer are not proved, the court may infer that the transaction was sham and no title passed.

---