K. MADHAVA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order of the District Munsif. Repalle rejecting two registered sale deeds dated 1895 and 1197 as it admissible in evidence on the ground that they do not bear the thumb impression or the signature of the executant. By the same order the District Munsiff held the document cated 1908 admissible in evidence as it bears the thumb impression of the person who is stated to have executed thedocumentiln this revision petition it is contended that even those two documents are admissible in evidence. While the arguments seemed to have been addressed as are now addressed before ne, as regards the presumption to be raised under Section 90 of the Evidence Act in respect of those documents which are admittedly over 30 years old and as regards the presumption arising out of the registration of those documents, the Additional District Munsiff proceeded to hold these documents inadmissible on the ground that they do not bear either the signature or the thumb-impression of the so called executant. Whether the document is admissible in evidence or not is one thing and whether the presumption under Section 90 of the Eviden

Click Here to Read the rest of this document