Registered documents and limitation: fraud must be proved to displace validity and postpone limitation under the Limitation Act.

A registered and attested document carries a presumption of validity, and a party alleging fraud or forgery must rebut it with credible evidence under the Evidence Act. On the facts discussed, testimony from the scribe and attesting witness, supported by corroboration, was treated as sufficient to establish due execution of the power of attorney and sale deeds, while the plea of impersonation failed. Because fraud was not proved, Section 17 of the Limitation Act could not postpone limitation on the basis of later discovery, and the challenge was held barred by time.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the registered general power of attorney dated 28.06.1990 and the sale deeds dated 29.06.1990 and 03.07.1990 were vitiated by fraud and forgery or were duly executed by the plaintiff. (ii) Whether the suits were barred by limitation in view of the alleged discovery of fraud in 2001.

Issue (i): Whether the registered general power of attorney dated 28.06.1990 and the sale deeds dated 29.06.1990 and 03.07.1990 were vitiated by fraud and forgery or were duly executed by the plaintiff.

Analysis: A registered document carries a presumption of validity, and the initial burden lay on the plaintiff to rebut that presumption. For proof of execution of attested documents, the Court relied on the scheme of Sections 68, 69 and 71 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The testimony of the scribe, attesting witness evidence, independent identification of the attesting witness's signatures, and corroborative expert evidence supported due execution of the disputed documents. The plea of impersonation and copied forgery was not established by tangible evidence, and the circumstances relied upon by the plaintiff were insufficient to displace the registered documents or the concurrent factual findings.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the plaintiff. The general power of attorney and the sale deeds were held to have been duly executed and were not proved to be products of fraud or forgery.

Issue (ii): Whether the suits were barred by limitation in view of the alleged discovery of fraud in 2001.

Analysis: Section 17 of the Limitation Act, 1963 postpones the running of limitation only where fraud is both pleaded and proved, and the plaintiff also establishes discovery of that fraud. Since the plaintiff failed to prove fraud itself, the foundation for invoking Section 17 failed. The concurrent findings that the disputed documents were executed by the plaintiff also undermined the plea that limitation began only on later discovery. The contrary view of the High Court on limitation was therefore unsustainable.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the plaintiff. The suits were held to be barred by limitation.

Final Conclusion: The concurrent findings of the trial court and first appellate court were restored, the High Court's reversal was set aside, and the plaintiff's challenge to the disputed transactions failed on merits as well as on limitation.

Ratio Decidendi: A registered and attested document is presumed valid, and a party alleging fraud must rebut that presumption with credible evidence; absent proof of fraud, Section 17 of the Limitation Act, 1963 cannot be invoked to postpone limitation.

---