{"id":239250,"date":"2020-11-17T01:43:42","date_gmt":"2020-11-16T20:13:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=239250"},"modified":"2020-12-05T12:50:48","modified_gmt":"2020-12-05T07:20:48","slug":"signature-obtained-by-fraud-burden-of-proof-is-on-the-party-alleging-such-forgery-says-sc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/11\/17\/signature-obtained-by-fraud-burden-of-proof-is-on-the-party-alleging-such-forgery-says-sc\/","title":{"rendered":"Signature obtained by fraud? Burden of proof is on the party alleging such forgery; says SC"},"content":{"rendered":"

Supreme Court<\/strong>: The bench of AM Khanwilkar*<\/strong> and Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ has held that for invoking Section 17 of the Limitation Act, 1963, two ingredients i.e. existence of a fraud and discovery of such fraud, have to be pleaded and duly proved and that in case of failure to establish the existence of fraud, there is no occasion for its discovery.<\/p>\n

\n

Background of the case<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n
\n

The dispute dating back to 1990 pertains to a General Power of Attorney (GPA) purported to have been executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant No. 1 and consequently sale deeds executed by defendant No. 1 as an attorney of the plaintiff. However, according to the plaintiff, reposing complete trust in her step brothers to step-brothers, she had signed on blank papers under the guise of preparation and processing of documents for the purpose of getting the estate left behind by their father mutated in their names.<\/p>\n

After analysing\u00a0the\u00a0evidence\u00a0on\u00a0record,\u00a0the\u00a0trial\u00a0Court\u00a0dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff and this order was upheld by the appellate Court. The High Court, however, reversed the concurrent opinions of two Courts and held that the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court committed manifest error and misapplied the settled legal position.<\/p>\n

Challenging the High Court\u2019s decision before the Supreme Court, the defendants argued that interference by the High Court was unwarranted as the same did not involve any substantial question of law. On merits, the aforesaid defendants contended that the evidence of the plaintiff was self\u00ad-contradictory, as she first claimed that her signatures were taken on blank papers and then denied her signatures occurring on the 1990 GPA. The plea that the signatures were taken on blank papers was not substantiated as the 1990 GPA was executed on stamp papers.<\/p>\n

\n

Analysis<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n
\n

The Court held that the diverse grounds urged by the plaintiff in disputing the 1990 GPA and the sale deeds were unsubstantiated and untenable. Here are the key factors taken into consideration by the Court:<\/p>\n