https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293439 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. en-us Mon, 20 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 11 Feb 2021 12:28:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293439 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 20 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293439