The main legal point established in the judgment is the onus of rebuttal of the presumption of valid execution of a registered document and the nature of limitation provisions.

M. Venugopal, J.

L.P.A.Nos.86 of 2001 and 87 of 2001 have been preferred by the appellant/plaintiff as against the Judgment and Decree passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in A.S.No.720 of 1987 and Tr.A.S.No.438 of 1989 dated 21.03.2000 holding that the Sale Deed dated 24.04.1968 executed by Sambournathammal in favour of Visalakshiammal cannot be held as null and void and the amount awarded by the trial Court payable by the respondents/defendants 1 and 2 is not proper and setting aside the same.

2.The appellant/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.445 of 1982 on the file of learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Pondicherry praying for a declaration that the Sale Deed dated 24. 1968 executed by Sampournathammal is null and void. The learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Pondicherry after considering the oral and documentary evidence has decreed the suit as against the respondents/defendants 1 and 2 with proportionate costs and dismissed the suit against the 3rd and 4th respondents without costs. The learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Pondicherry has given a specific finding that the appellant/plaintiff is not entitled to cancel the Sale Deed as prayed for in the plaint. However, the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Pondicherry has ordered the respondents/defendants 1 and 2 to pay a sum of Rs.7,500/-to the plaintiff in order to get absolute title over the suit properties as per Ex.A.4-ale deed dated 24.04.1968.

3.As against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Pondicherry in O.S.No.445 of 1982 dated 30.04.1986, the appellant/plaintiff in L.P.A.Nos.86 of 2001 has preferred A.S.No.720 of 1987 before this Court. The first respondent/first defendant in the suit has filed Tr.A.S.No.438 of 1989 before this Court and a common judgment was passed on 21.03.2000.

4.Aggrieved against the common Judgment and Decree passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in A.S.No.720 of 1987 and Tr.A.S.No.438 of 1989, the plaintiff as appellant has filed the L.P.A.Nos.86 and 87 of 2001.

5.The learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff urges that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that the respondents have failed to establish by adducing evidence that the Sale Deed-Ex.A.4 dated 24.04.1968 executed by Sambournathammal in favour of Visalakshiammal is supported by consideration and that it was not tainted by fraud, misrepresentation and undue influence and that the learned Single Judge should have seen that the first respondent/first defendant engineered the entire Sale Deed dated 24.04.1968 and his non examination is fatal to the case and that adverse inference ought to have been drawn against the respondents especially when the act of fraud originated from the act of first respondent/first defendant and that the learned Single Judge ought to have seen the Sale Deed dated 24.04.1968 has been executed on 24.04.1968, well before the Mortgage Deed-Ex.B.1 dated 212. 1971 executed by the first respondent/first defendant in favour of 4th defendant in the suit.

6.According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Single Judge erred in holding that the suit is not maintainable and in this regard, the reliance placed on Section 55(b) of the Indian Union Territories Act is misconceived and further that the learned Single Judge failed to notice that Ex.B.1-Mortgage Deed dated 212. 1971 does not bind Sambournathammal and that it is only an offshoot of Ex.A.4-Sale Deed dated 24.04.1968.

7.It is the further case of the appellant that as per Ex.A.5-Lawyer Notice dated 22.01.1980, Sambournathammal was put on notice of the fraudulent transaction only when the officials of the financial institution came to visit the property and this fact has not been taken note of by the learned Single Judge and therefore, the appellant prays for allowing L.P.A.Nos.86 and 87 of 2001.

8.It is well settled principle that when a plea of fraud is taken by the appellant/plaintiff, it is for her to e