Judgment.-These two second appeals raise a common question as to the validity of registration of a trust deed executed by one Natharsa Rowther on 26th June, 1920. The question arises this way. The founder’s son, Abdul Khader, succeeding as trustee, alienated the properties of the trust as though they were his own, not disclosing that they were inalienable trust properties. After Abdul Khader’s death, the grandson of the founder became trustee. Acting on behalf of the trust, he sued the alienees for a declaration and possession, contending that the alienations were void having been made in breach of trust. The alienees resisted the suits. One of the defences raised by them was that the trust itself was invalid since the deed of trust had not been validly registered. This contention, as well as others, were rejected by both the Courts below and the suits were decreed in favour of the trust as prayed for. The alienees have now come in further appeal before this Court.

2. Mr. R. N. Kothandaraman arguing for one of the alienees, the appellants, in S.A. No. 2460 of 1975, has repeated the contention that the registration of the original trust deed was invalid. His agrument contred round a narrow point. He conceded that the document was duly executed by Natharsa Rowther on 26th June, 1920. He conceded that it was duly presented for registration on the same day, 26th June, 1920, by the executant’s agent. He conceded that the agent had been duly authorized to do so under a valid power of attorney, dated 25th June, 1920 executed by Natharsa Rowther. Granting all these, Mr. Kothandaraman, nevertheless contended that the registration was invalid, for, according to him, Natharsa Rowther was not alive on the date of registration, which was 7th August, 1920. Learned counsel said that Natharsa Rowther died within 15 days of the execution of the trust deed, on his way to Mecca during his sea voyage, and that the presentation of the document by the agent for registration and the subsequent registration were all done subsequent to the executant’s death. It was accordingly urged that the registration was invalid.

3. I cannot accept learned counsel’s contention as to the death of Natharsa Rowther, in the face of the finding of both the Courts below that the old man died only afer he returned to Bombay after successfully completing his pilgrimage. Both Courts accepted the oral evidence to this effect adduced by as many as four witnesses.

4. Mr. Kothandaraman pointed out that no certificate of death was filed by the trust to prove that the deceased had died in Bombay after his return from Mecca. But there is no law which says that death cannot be satisfactorily proved in a Court of law by oral evidence alone.

5. Mr. Kothandaraman then said that even the oral evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiff-Trust did not give the exact date of death. According to him, it was upto the trust to establish that at the time of presentation of the document the executant was very much alive and it was only later that he had died. He urged that the onus of establishing that the registration was valid in the sense that it had been done during the lifetime of the executant was on the plaintiff - trust. He punctuated his argument by referring to sections 101 and 102 of the Evidence Act.

6. I must, however, reject the above arguments. I do so, not in derogation of the rules of evidence quoted by learned counsel, but in affirmation of a special rule of evidence, appropriate in this case, found in section 60 (2) of the Indian Registration Act, 1908. Under this provision, where registration is granted certificate shall be admissible for the purpose of proving that the document had been duly registered in the manner provided by the Act and that the facts set out by the registering authority in the endorsements made by him in the instrument had all occurred as therein mentioned. This provision, doubtless enacts only a rebuttable presumption as to the facts relating to the valid

Click Here to Read the rest of this document