The main legal point established in the judgment is the presumption of correctness of the endorsement made on the document by the Registration Officer under Section 60 of the Registration Act, and the burden of proof in civil cases.

Surinder Singh, J.

The above titled Regular Second appeals by the defendants are arising out of the common judgment of reversal dated 19.6.1997, passed by the learned District Judge in Civil Appeals No 17-NL/13 of 1995 and 8-NL/13 of 1995 decided on 19.6.1997.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal as are under:-

(i) The suit land as detailed in the plaint was owned by Shri Mothu father of respondent Gopal Singh (now dead through her LRs) proforma respondents Ram Krishan and Pritam Chand. Meen the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant in RSA No. 191 of 1997 filed civil suit No. 276/1 of 1991 which has been referred as civil suit No. 2 by the learned trial Court. In his plaint filed on 24.9.1991 he sought declaration that he is owner in possession of the suit land with consequential injunction against Meen aforesaid pleading that he required some money to repair the house and this fact came to the knowledge of defendant Meen. He approached Mothu to mortgage the suit land for a sum of `10,000/-. Mothu plaintiff agreed to it. His sons aforesaid were living outside and he was residing in village Thana, he being 85 years of age remained sick and was weak in body and mind at the relevant time when the defendant approached him with a proposal to mortgage the land. Thus, on 13.9.1991 Meen defendant brought the plaintiff to Nalagarh and got the mortgage deed executed for `10,000/-. But on 20.9.1991 he was shocked to know that instead of registering the mortgage deed he is alleged to have executed a sale deed in connivance with the petition writer Satish Kumar and attesting witnesses Amin Chand and Nizam Deen with a view to grab the property and this was a fraudulent misrepresentation. He further averred that the value of the land was not less than one lac rupees and it would not have been sold by him merely for ` 10,000/-thus the sale deed was forged and fabricated one and the result of fraud played against him. It was his case that neither the scribe nor the attesting witnesses or the Sub Registrar ever revealed him about the true nature of the document. Thus the said defendant took the advantage of his age and illiteracy and sought the declaration that he was the owner in possession of the suit land and the alleged sale deed is illegal and void and also prayed the consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction. (ii). The another suit was filed by one of the sons of Mothu named Gopal Singh (now deceased) against Meen defendant and also against his father Mothu Ram impleading his other brothers as proforma defendants (referred as suit No. 1 by the learned trial Court) seeking declaration and injunction on the ground that Mothu as well as the plaintiff and proforma defendants aforesaid constitute a ‘joint Hindu family’ and co-parcenery, his father Mothu defendant No. 2 was the karta thereof but alleged that he re-enunciated his duties as Karta on 13.4.1989 and the aforesaid coparceners constituted as Karta with respect to the ‘joint Hindu family’ as their father could no longer manage the suit land and other affairs on account of his mental and physical weaknesses. The coparcenery property was recorded in the name of defendant No. 2 Mothu in the revenue record. The said property was acquired from the funds of the joint Hindu family funds. The proforma defendants had been looking after and maintaining him and there was no legal necessarily to mortgage the land in favour of defendant Meen. It was also pleaded that the plaintiff came to know on 18.9.1991 about the said transaction from the Patwari concerned and obtained the copies of the sale deed which, according to him was the result of fraud played on his father owing to his illiteracy ignorance and old age. Thus sought the aforesaid relief.

3. Defendant Meen resisted and contested both the suits almost on identical grounds and raised the preliminary objections of maintainability in the first suit, cause of action and to stay the suit as per provision of