The central legal point established in the judgment is the presumption of correctness of the endorsements made on the document by the Registering Officer under Section 60 of the Registration Act, and the importance of evidence on record in determining the validity of a sale deed.

Kuldip Chand Sood, J.—This second appeal arises out of the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan dated June 10, 1998. Facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal may be noticed: Maina Devi, plaintiff and respondent in this appeal, hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff" is the owner in possession of the suit property alongwith proforma defendants. Contesting defendants, "appellants herein" namely, Kripa Ram, Som Dutt, Rama Nand and Rajinder are the real brothers. Plaintiff Maina Devi laid a suit before learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Kandaghat, District Solan for declaration that she was the owner in possession of the suit property and the sale deed of the property, allegedly executed by her on May 18, 1992, in favour of the contesting defendants was without consideration and result of fraud and misrepresentation. Therefore, the sale deed as well as consequent mutation attested in favour of the contesting defendants on September 19, 1992, was null and void and not binding on the plaintiff. Plaintiff also sought relief of permanent injunction restraining the contesting defendants from interfering in the suit property in any manner either themselves or through agents, servants, relatives or assignees.

2. The case of the plaintiff was: She was a issueless widow of about 70 years of age. There was nobody to look after her in the family of the plaintiff in old age. Kripa Ram, the eldest of the contesting defendants, was Namberdar of the village and, therefore, was a powerful and influential person. In March 1992, Kripa Ram visited the plaintiff, in her house, and told the plaintiff that he and his brothers would look after her if she executes a registered will in their favour. Plaintiff agreed to the proposal. On May 18, 1992, she was brought by the defendants to the Tehsil Office at Rajgarh with an understanding that she was to execute registered will of her share in the suit property in favour of the defendants. On September 15, 1993, plaintiff went to the patwari halqa, to obtain revenue papers of her land to raise loan from the Bank. To the dismay of the plaintiff, she came to know from the patwari that her entire land measuring 45-14 bighas has been mutated in favour of the contesting defendants on September 19, 1992 on the basis of the sale deed and no land was left in her share. Plaintiff filed a complaint before the Deputy Commissioner, Sirmaur but nothing came out. On the advice of her Advocate, she obtained copies of the sale deed and mutation No. 346 and thereafter, she came to know that instead of will, the defendants got a sale deed executed from her, which was registered with the Sub-Registrar at Rajgarh. It was the further case of the plaintiff that witnesses of the fraudulent sale deed were not present on the day when the plaintiff was brought to Tehsil headquarters at Rajgarh to execute the will. According to her, the sale deed bears the date of May 18, 1992 on which date, neither the plaintiff was asked to appear before the Sub Registrar nor the witnesses were present on that day. It is the case of the plaintiff that the contents of the document, the alleged sale deed, were never read over or explained to her at the time of execution of the sale or by the Sub Registrar when the document was presented for registration. The plaintiff was merely asked to sign certain papers and she obliged. The alleged sale deed and consequent mutation No. 346, maintained plaintiff, was the result of fraud, misrepresentation by the defendants and collusion between the defendants marginal witnesses and the Sub Registrar, Rajgarh and, therefore, the same is illegal, null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs over the suit property.

3. The defendants resisted the suit. Allegations were controverted. Several preliminary objections as to the maintainability of the suit, it being barred by the period of limitation and estoppels etc., were raised. According to the defendants, plain