Fraud on Pardanashin Woman Proven: Punjab & Haryana High Court Restores Trial Court Decree, Sets Aside Fraudulent Power of Attorney
Case Name: Panpauri (Since Deceased) Through LRs v. Nanku (Since Deceased) Through LRs and Others
Date of Judgment: 17 February 2026
Citation: RSA No. 3120-1996
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virinder Aggarwal
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that where a document is executed by an illiterate and pardanashin woman, the burden lies heavily upon the beneficiary to prove that it was executed after full understanding of its contents and consequences. Mere thumb impression and registration do not establish conscious execution. In the absence of proof of informed consent, and where surrounding circumstances indicate misuse, a power of attorney can be declared null and void on grounds of fraud and undue influence.
Summary: The Regular Second Appeal was preferred by the plaintiff-appellant challenging the judgment dated 10.06.1996 passed by the learned District Judge, Jind, whereby the appellate Court had reversed the well-reasoned judgment and decree dated 15.09.1992 of the learned Additional Senior Sub Judge, Safidon .
The plaintiff, Panpauri, filed a suit seeking declaration that Mukhtiarnama (General Power of Attorney) dated 13.12.1974 was null and void on account of fraud and undue influence. She further challenged the judgment and decree dated 02.05.1980 passed in Civil Appeal No. ADJ-54 of 1980, contending that it had been obtained through collusion and misuse of the said power of attorney .
Panpauri pleaded that she was an illiterate and pardanashin lady. She asserted that she was made to affix her thumb impression on the representation that a suit would be filed against Roshni and Mukhtiara to recover family land, and that she never authorised filing of any admission written statement on her behalf. She also contended that she remained recorded as owner in possession in the revenue records .
The Trial Court, after examining oral and documentary evidence, held that mere thumb marking does not amount to valid execution, particularly in the case of a pardanashin woman. It observed that neither the petition writer nor attesting witnesses were examined by the defendants to prove due execution and understanding of contents. The Trial Court further inferred fraud from surrounding circumstances and fiduciary relationship, and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff .
However, the learned District Judge reversed the findings, holding that the document was duly registered and that the burden of proving fraud lay strictly upon the plaintiff. The First Appellate Court emphasized presumption of validity attached to registered documents and concluded that fraud was not proved .
Before the High Court, the central issue revolved around burden of proof in transactions involving pardanashin women. The Court noted that it was admitted that Panpauri was an illiterate and pardanashin lady. In such cases, settled law mandates that the burden shifts to the beneficiary of the document to establish that it was executed after full knowledge and understanding of its contents. The defendants failed to discharge this burden, as they neither examined the petition writer nor proved that the document was read over and explained to her .
The Court further found that the chronology of events materially undermined the defence version. The Mukhtiarnama was executed on 13.12.1974, whereas Civil Suit No. 248 was filed on 26.12.1974. The defence plea that the power of attorney was executed to “appear and conduct the suit” was inconsistent, since no suit was pending on the date of execution .
Additionally, the filing of a written statement admitting the entire claim in the earlier suit was found to be inherently unnatural. If the plaintiff intended to transfer the land, the lawful course would have been execution of a registered sale deed rather than routing the transaction through litigation and decree on admission. This conduct strongly indicated misuse of the power of attorney .
The High Court also held that any alleged admission by co-executant Sundri could not bind Panpauri in the absence of proof of authority or joint representation, particularly since Sundri did not enter the witness box .
On cumulative consideration, the Court held that the First Appellate Court had misapplied the burden of proof and ignored settled principles governing transactions by pardanashin women. The Trial Court had correctly appreciated evidence and drawn legitimate inferences.
Decision: The Regular Second Appeal was allowed. The judgment and decree dated 10.06.1996 passed by the learned District Judge, Jind were set aside. The judgment and decree dated 15.09.1992 passed by the learned Additional Senior Sub Judge, Safidon were restored .