A registered sale-deed has presumptive validity unless fraud is proven, placing the burden of proof on the party alleging fraud.

JUDGMENT :

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

Learned counsel for the parties are present.

2. With respect to substantial question no. (i), the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the defendant no. 2 had denied execution of the sale-deed by which the property was transferred in favour of the plaintiff. The specific case was that the original defendant no.2 never signed in Bangla and he used to sign in Hindi. He submits that for substantial question no. (i), two points are required to be considered: -

(a) Denial of Rajamoni Mondal with respect to execution of sale-deed no. 388 of 2001, and

(b) that he was not examined to prove the sale-deed.

3. The learned counsel submits that admittedly Rajamoni Mondal (original defendant no. 2) expired during the pendency of the case after filing the written statement and his wife and son were examined as witness, therefore, there was sufficient explanation for non- examination of Rajamoni Mondal. The learned counsel has also submitted that Rajamoni Mondal was impleaded as a defendant in the case and he denied the execution of the deed. Mere denial was not conclusive and the matter was to be determined as to whether he had executed the sale-deed or not.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents has further submitted that since the only defence was that original defendant no.2 never used to sign in Bangla, numerous documents were exhibited in the Court which were signed by the original defendant no. 2 in different court proceedings in which he had put his signature in Bangla.

5. The learned counsel has also referred to Exhibit-F which was relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant during the course of hearing and has submitted that the title suit is of the year 1991 and Exhibit-F is dated 28.04.2005. The learned counsel has further submitted that the son of the defendant no. 2 was a witness in the sale- deed executed in favour of the plaintiff, but during his examination as DW- 13 he has not denied his signature as a witness in the sale-deed. He also submits that DW- 13 in his own deposition has stated that he was known as Mahesh @ Maheshwar Mandal. The learned counsel also submits that DW 13 had not stated that his father had not signed the sale-deed, rather his specific case was that his father, original defendant no. 2, never used to sign in Bangla and his only defence was that his father did not know how to write in Bangla.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents has also submitted that P.W. 4, who is an advocate, has been examined in the case and he has been the advocate of original defendant no. 2 in various cases and he had exhibited numerous documents including exhibit-4, 4/A, 5 and 6 which were signed by the original defendant no. 2 in Bangla. The learned counsel has submitted that the very plea that the original defendant no.2 never used to sign in Bangla stood demolished on the basis of the documents which were exhibited on behalf of the plaintiff and those documents were marked without any objection.

7. The learned counsel for the respondents has also submitted that there was no occasion for the plaintiff to send any document for verification of signature in view of the fact that the specific case of the defendants was that original defendant no. 2 never used to sign in Bangla and admitted signatures were placed on record which were duly signed by original defendant no. 2 and there were sufficient materials on record to show that original defendant no. 2 used to sign in Bangla also.

8. The learned counsel for the respondents has further submitted that the exe