Registered Transfer Deed Not Binding When Executed Under Fraud and Misrepresentation — Punjab & Haryana High Court Declares Deed Void Despite Registration

“Once execution is specifically denied by the executant, the burden lies on the beneficiary to prove the same by examining an attesting witness, especially in case of a registered deed”, Punjab & Haryana High Court delivered a decisive verdict on a crucial legal issue—whether a registered transfer deed can stand if its execution is denied and not proven as per the Indian Evidence Act. Justice Deepak Gupta held that “mere registration of a document cannot substitute its legal proof when the executant himself denies execution”, and dismissed the second appeal filed by the appellant Gurdeep Singh.

Sansar Singh, an unmarried and issueless uncle, had filed the suit against his nephews Gurdeep and Santokh Singh, alleging that he was misled into thumb-marking a deed he believed was a Will, but which was later discovered to be a sale deed fraudulently transferring his 1/3rd share in ancestral abadi land to the defendants.

The trial court and the first appellate court had both ruled in his favour—findings that were affirmed in the present second appeal, creating a significant precedent on evidentiary standards in cases of fraudulent registration of property documents.

“The Document Was No Will, But The Deceit Was Real” — Plaintiff Misled to Sign Sale Deed Under Pretext of Executing Will

The controversy revolved around a registered transfer deed dated 06.01.2006, which was allegedly executed by plaintiff Sansar Singh in favour of his nephews. According to the plaintiff, he was made to believe by the defendants that he was executing a Will, not a transfer deed, and his thumb impression was taken under this false pretext at the Tehsil Complex, Balachaur.

“I had blind faith in them. They said I was signing a Will. I later discovered I had lost ownership of my property.”

This startling revelation surfaced when the plaintiff obtained Jamabandi records in 2013, revealing mutation No. 3011, showing transfer of his share in favour of the defendants. He immediately executed a cancellation deed and approached the civil court.

The plaintiff pleaded that the deed was obtained by fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation, and sought declaration that the deed was void, along with permanent injunction against dispossession and, in the alternative, joint possession of the suit property.

“Proof of Execution Is the Soul of a Registered Document” — Court Applies Section 68 of Evidence Act Strictly

Rejecting the defence that the deed was valid merely because it was registered, the Court held:

“Section 68 of the Evidence Act mandates that when the execution of a document is denied by the executant, it cannot be used in evidence unless at least one attesting witness is examined.”

Though the document in question was not a Will and was registered, the Court highlighted:

“Sansar Singh specifically denied execution of the deed and alleged it to be a product of fraud and misrepresentation. Hence, it became essential for the defendants to examine an attesting witness. Their failure to do so is fatal.”

Despite the presence of two attesting witnesses—Jaspal Singh Nambardar and Mohinder Singh, neither was examined. The only witness produced was the scribe, DW1 Swaran Singh, whose testimony was dismissed as ineffective:

“He merely confirmed that he scribed the deed. He did not testify that contents were read to the plaintiff or that execution occurred in the presence of witnesses.”

“The Defendants’ Own Witness Undermined Their Case” — Testimony of Wife and Brother Proved Plaintiff’s Version

The High Court found further corroboration in the testimony of PW2 Santokh Singh, the co-defendant and brother of the appellant, who admitted in court that:

“Sansar Singh never transferred his share in the suit property to us.”

Moreover, the appellant Gurdeep Singh did not even enter the witness box himself, instead examining his wife, Smt. Avtar Kaur, as his attorney. Her testimony dismantled the defence completely:

“On 06.01.2006, Sansar Singh handed me a document and said he had executed a Will.”

This admission was decisive. The Court remarked: “Her statement clinches the matter and proves that plaintiff was misled to believe he had executed a Will, not a transfer deed.”

“The Suit Is Not Simplicitor — It Is Strengthened by Consequential Reliefs” — Court Rejects Plea of Maintainability

The appellant’s counsel attempted to defeat the suit on the ground that it was a “mere declaratory suit”, referring to Gian Kaur v. Raghubir Singh, AIR 2011 SC 855. The Court clarified the law:

“A simple suit for declaration may be barred under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, but not when it is accompanied by consequential reliefs.”

Justice Gupta elaborated: “Here, the plaintiff sought not only declaration but also permanent injunction and, in the alternative, joint possession. Therefore, the suit is fully maintainable.”

“Fraud Unravels All — Courts Below Rightly Voided the Deed” — Second Appeal Dismissed

After assessing the oral and documentary evidence, the Court concluded: “There is no illegality or perversity in the concurrent findings of the courts below. The impugned deed was clearly the result of fraud and misrepresentation. The appeal is devoid of any merit.”

Thus, the High Court upheld the decree in favour of Sansar Singh, declaring the 2006 transfer deed “wrong, illegal and void”, affirming his 1/3rd ownership, and restraining the defendants from dispossessing him.

Date of Decision: 03.09.2025