A Singapore Owner's Attorney Sold His Pudukkottai Building in 1999. The Occupiers Called It Forgery. The Madras High Court Upheld the Sale.

An owner living in Singapore gave a local man a power of attorney in 1996, notarised in Singapore and registered in India. The attorney sold the building in 1999. The occupiers refused to leave, said the power of attorney and both sale deeds were forged, and won at trial in 2008. On 25 September 2026 the Madras High Court at Madurai reversed that result: the occupiers had proved nothing, and they must hand over possession.

The case

The appeal is A.S.(MD) No. 210 of 2009, Kannaki v. Saroja and others, before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, neutral citation 2026:MHC:3942. P. Vadamalai, J. heard it alone, reserved judgment on 29 June 2026 and pronounced it on 25 September 2026. The judgment runs to 31 pages. The appeal was from O.S. No. 158 of 2004, which the Principal District Judge, Pudukkottai dismissed on 12 December 2008. The appeal, numbered in 2009, was decided in 2026.

The buyer sought four reliefs (paragraph 2): a declaration that she owns the building, recovery of possession from the occupiers, rent arrears from the first occupier, and an order to the municipality to move the property tax assessment into her name. The municipality was released from the appeal on 10 April 2026 as a formal party.

The chain of title

The buyer's documents, as the court describes them at paragraphs 4, 10 and 19:

• 22 January 1978: Pethaiya bought the plot by registered sale deed and built on it. He let three portions to tenants, one of them the first defendant.
• 20 January 1994: Pethaiya sold the property to his son Elango by registered sale deed.
• 15 March 1996: Elango, then living in Singapore, gave a power of attorney to Alagu to look after the property. Paragraph 19 records that it was "duly notarized by the advocate of Singapore" and then registered before the Registrar of Tiruchirappalli.
• 14 October 1999: Alagu, as attorney, sold the property to the buyer by registered sale deed. The buyer's name went into the tax and electricity records.

On the buyer's case, the first defendant paid rent of Rs 750 a month from October 1999 to October 2001 and stopped from November 2001. The buyer's eviction petition before the Rent Controller, RCOP No. 27 of 2002, was dismissed with liberty to go to a civil court, because the occupiers now claimed to own the building.

What the occupiers said

The occupiers said the first defendant married Pethaiya on 23 October 1977 and that the second defendant is their daughter. They said Pethaiya left them the property by a Will of 15 May 1994 and died on 2 May 1997. They said a former manager of Pethaiya's transport business, dismissed in 1984, forged the power of attorney and the sale deeds out of revenge (paragraphs 4 and 13). They also argued that the sale deeds carried no buyer's signature and that no price was proved.

What the court held

The Will fell away

The occupiers could not produce the Will and, at the appeal, their counsel conceded they were not pressing it. The court held the question of Pethaiya's heirs "irrelevant to the facts of this case" (paragraph 18).

The buyer proved her title

A person suing for possession against someone in possession must prove ownership (paragraph 19). The buyer produced the original registered sale deeds and the original power of attorney, the tax receipts and the electricity connection in her name. Her husband and the attorney Alagu gave evidence of the sale (paragraph 20).

A registered deed is presumed valid

Paragraph 21 relies on Section 114(e) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, now Section 115 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. Paragraph 22 quotes the Supreme Court in Hemalatha v. Tukaram, 2026 INSC 82, decided 22 January 2026: a registered sale deed "carries with it a formidable presumption of validity and genuineness."

The person alleging forgery must prove it

Paragraph 23: when a party challenges a registered power of attorney or sale deed for fraud, "the burden of proof is strictly on the challenger." The occupiers examined no witness on the documents and filed no police complaint (paragraphs 24 and 25). Paragraph 25 says that, as the claimed wife and daughter, they would know Pethaiya's signature, and they "ought to have" sought a handwriting expert's opinion. They did not.

The price and the signature objections failed

The seller never denied receiving the price, and no document showed it was unpaid (paragraph 26, applying Raziya Begum v. Nafisa Begum Abdul Hamid, 2026 INSC 814). On the missing buyer's signature, the occupiers' own purchase deeds carried only the seller's signature too, and the judgment records that the rule requiring both signatures came into force on 14 April 2001, after both deeds (paragraph 27).

The appeal was allowed with no costs. The suit was decreed as prayed, and the occupiers were directed to hand over possession "within a period of three months" (paragraph 29).

What it means for an NRI owner

The court's own reasons point at what carried this case: a chain of registered deeds with no gap, a power of attorney executed abroad and then registered in India, the original documents in court, the attorney himself in the witness box, and tax and electricity records in the buyer's name. Against that, a bare plea of forgery went nowhere.

The dates cut the other way. The sale was in 1999, the rent stopped in 2001, the suit was filed in 2004, and possession was ordered in 2026. A registered power of attorney protects the title. It does not make an occupier leave.

Our guide on power of attorney from the UAE and Singapore covers how a deed made abroad is executed and brought to India. The guide on whether a general power of attorney can transfer title covers what an attorney's sale does and does not pass. For the occupier side, see evicting a tenant as an NRI, and for records, khata and mutation for a remote owner.

This judgment turned on its own record. A dispute over an attorney's sale or an occupier's claim belongs with a lawyer who can read the deeds and the evidence.

FAQ

Is a sale by a power of attorney holder valid if the owner lives abroad? In this case, yes. The Madras High Court upheld a 1999 sale made under a power of attorney the owner signed in Singapore, notarised there and registered in Tiruchirappalli.

Who has to prove that a registered power of attorney or sale deed is forged? The person alleging forgery. Paragraph 23 of the 25 September 2026 judgment says the burden "is strictly on the challenger", and the document holder cannot be asked to prove the negative.

What evidence did the court expect from the side alleging forgery? The court noted that the occupiers examined no witness on the documents, filed no police complaint and did not seek a handwriting expert's opinion under Sections 45 and 73 of the Indian Evidence Act.

Did the occupiers' claim under a Will help them? No. They could not produce the Will and did not press it at the appeal, so the court did not consider it.

How long do the occupiers have to leave? The court directed them to hand over possession within three months of its judgment of 25 September 2026.

66 MG Road newsdesk

Sources

• Kannaki v. Saroja and others, A.S.(MD) No. 210 of 2009, 2026:MHC:3942, Madras High Court, Madurai Bench, P. Vadamalai J, reserved 29 June 2026, pronounced 25 September 2026, 31 pages. The court's own PDF was downloaded on 28 September 2026, 360,575 bytes, sha256 c0d0ed3d791fbebf503a41dee1ed044461cd8894c0dee72a63b14ae0a7eec099, and read in full: https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/index.php/casestatus/viewpdf/2107206
• Paragraph 28 of the PDF says the buyer produced the "original sale deeds of her vendor and herself as Ex.A.11 and Ex.A.14". Exhibit A.11 is the power of attorney; the vendor's sale deed is Exhibit A.10 (paragraphs 19 and 20). We describe the documents as paragraphs 19 and 20 do.
• The judgment names the statutory provision behind the 14 April 2001 signature rule as "Section 34A of the Registration Act". We give the date the judgment records and do not restate the section number.
• The parties' accounts of when Pethaiya died differ: the occupiers say 2 May 1997 (paragraph 4), the buyer's counsel says he was alive until 8 September 1999 (paragraph 12). The court made no finding on it.