Mr. V.B.S. Negi And Mr. M.S. Tyagi vs Praveen
2025 Latest Caselaw 4367 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Mr. V.B.S. Negi And Mr. M.S. Tyagi vs Praveen on 16 September, 2025

Author: Rakesh Thapliyal

Bench: Rakesh Thapliyal

             Office Notes, reports,
             orders or proceedings
SL.
      Date     or directions and                          COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No
             Registrar's order with
                  Signatures


                                      SA No. 75 of 2025
                                      Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.

1. Mr. V.B.S. Negi and Mr. M.S. Tyagi, learned Sr. Advocates assisted by Ms. Asmeen Wilson, learned counsel for the appellant.

2. The instant second appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 04.04.2025 passed by 1st Addl. District Judge, Dehradun in Civil Appeal No. 84 of 2022 (Shivraj Singh (dead) and another Vs. Praveen Kumari and another) and judgment and decree dated 08.07.2022 passed by Civil Judge, Dehradun in O.S. No. 64 of 2005 (Shivraj Singh (dead) and another Vs. Praveen Kumari and another).

3. The suit was filed by the appellant / plaintiff for cancellation of the sale deed on the ground that same was executed on the basis of forged and unregistered power of attorney.

4. It is argued by Mr. M.S. Tyagi, learned Sr. Advocate for the appellant that while dismissing the suit the trial court has not examined whether power of attorney has to be registered or not before execution of the sale deed.

5. Being aggrieved with the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, appellant preferred first appeal, that too was dismissed. Now, the instant second appeal has been filed.

6. The instant second appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of law:

"a. Whether both the learned courts while passing the impugned judgments and decrees lost sight of the fact that impugned sale deed, has been executed on the strength of an unregistered forged and fabricated alleged power of attorney and the execution of which has been denied by the plaintiff no. 1 (now dead) while deposing before the learned trial court and the respondents failed to prove the same by cogent evidence.

b. Whether both the learned courts wrongly shifted the burden of proof on the plaintiff and wrongly interpreted the provisions of Section 101 and 103 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 while passing the impugned judgments and decrees specially when the appellant / plaintiff specifically denied the execution of alleged power of attorney in favour of defendant no. 2.?"

7. Issue notice to the respondents.

8. Steps be taken within a week.

9. Summon the trial court record.

10. List after service report.

11. In the meantime, both the parties are directed to maintain status quo, over the property in question with a further rider that they will not create any third party interest.

(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 16.09.2025 SKS