IMPORTANT POINT
The presumption of due execution of a registered sale deed lies with the plaintiff, and the burden of proof rests on the defendant to rebut this presumption.

JUDGMENT :

Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.

1. This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff against the judgment of reversal. Plaintiff’s declaratory suit for title and recovery of possession was decreed by the learned trial Court and reversed in appeal.

2. The parties shall be referred to by their original placement in the suit and will include their legal representatives substituted at different stages.

PLAINTIFF’S CASE

3. Plaintiff is the mother and the suit has been brought against her son for the declaration of title and possession over the ground floor of a double storied building, detailed in the plaint, on the basis of a sale deed executed by her husband, and father of the defendant on 13.10.2006. After the said purchase, plaintiff got it mutated in the Anchal and is paying rent to the State.

4. The said property was self-acquired property of her husband Ganesh Prasad and was purchased by plaintiff from her own savings and stridhan property and got her name mutated in the anchal. After the said property was purchased both her sons started quarrelling with the plaintiff and consequently, the suit for declaration and recovery of possession was filed.

DEFENDANT’S CASE

5. The case of the defendant is that suit property was allotted by defendant through amicable partition. The house was constructed by Ganesh Prasad and he was inducted in the house.

6. With regard to the sale deed, it is pleaded that his father was suffering mental illness of dementia and paralysis. His mother was a complete house wife without any independent source of income. The said sale deed was not to the knowledge of the defendant and the same was forged and fabricated prepared in the name of the executant Ganesh Prasad to grab the share of the defendant which was allotted to him in amicable partition between his father Sri Ganesh Prasad, the defendant and his eldest brother. In the said partition the ground floor of the main building was allotted to the defendant and the 1st floor to the share of eldest brother.

7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned trial Court:-

(III) Whether the plaintiff has purchased the suit property out of her own funds, savings and Stridhan?

(IV) Whether plaintiff has got right, title and interest over the suit property?

8. The learned trial Court decreed the suit by recording finding of fact in favour of plaintiff.

9. The first appellate Court reversed the finding of the learned trial Court and dismissed the suit of the Plaintiff on the ground that the sale deed (Exhibit 1) had not been duly proved. Although it was stated in the content of the sale deed that Ganesh Prasad executed the sale deed, signature of Ganesh Prasad on the entire sale deed was absent and only his thumb impressions were there. The thumb impressions were not identified by anyone. The witness namely Awadhesh Prasad and Sarveshwar Prasad to the sale deed, were not examined and therefore, it was not validly and legally executed.

10. Instant appeal has been admitted to be heard on the following substantial question of law:-

I. Whether the learned lower appellate court has committed an error on a substantial question of law by reversing the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court without considering and meeting the reasonings given by the learned trial court in support of its judgments?

II. Whether, since for decreeing the suit the learned trial court had relied upon Exhibit 1, the registered sale deed (an admitted document marked exhibit without objection), the evidence of the plaintiff showing her independent source of income, the custody of the original sale deed, the custody of the vendor’s sale deed (exhibit-1/A) for the purpose of holding that the plaintiff got title over the suit property, the learned lower appellate court has committed an error on a substantial question of law by setting aside the judgment and decree of the learned trial court without considering the reasoning of the learned trial court?

11. I