The presumption of correctness of the endorsement made by the Sub-Registrar under Section 58 of the Registration Act can only be rebutted by strong evidence to the contrary.

Manoj Misra,J.

Heard Sri Sharad Malviya, learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. This is a plaintiff's second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 15th November, 2010, passed by the Court of Additional District Judge (Court No.1), Azamgarh in Civil Appeal No.315 of 2008, arising out of original suit no.496 of 2003, whereby the appeal of the plaintiff was dismissed and the judgment and decree of the trial court dismissing the plaintiff's suit was affirmed.

2. The relevant facts are that the appellant instituted suit for permanent prohibitory injunction, which was, promptly, amended so as to seek cancellation of sale deed dated 21st April, 2003, purportedly, executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendants 1 & 2 (both minors). The plaint case was that the plaintiff had been taken by the defendant no.3 (Ajaj Ahmad), the grand father of defendants 1 & 2, to the Sub Registrar's office for being witness of a sale deed to be executed by Ajaj Ahmad in favour of his grandsons, but by playing fraud upon the plaintiff, Ajaj Ahmad got from the plaintiff, a sale deed executed in favour of his own grandsons i.e. defendants 1 and 2. It was pleaded that the plaintiff is not mentally sound; that he neither intended, nor needed, to execute the sale deed; that no sale consideration passed; and that no prior negotiation took place for sale. The defendants contested the suit denying the plaint averments.

3. The trial Court framed various issues. After examining the various pleas taken by the plaintiff as well as the evidence, in detail, recorded a finding that the sale deed was duly executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendants 1 and 2, in full understanding of the nature of transaction, and that the sale consideration of Rs.3,00,000/- (three lacs) had passed. The case taken by the plaintiff that he used to suffer from mental illness was disbelieved on the ground that no medical certificate was produced by the plaintiff to support his claim as also that the plaintiff failed to prove that at the time of execution of the sale deed he was not in a fit mental condition. The findings returned by the trial court were affirmed by the lower appellate court after examining the entire evidence in detail.

4. The valid execution of the sale deed was proved by the testimony of various witnesses including the attesting witness, the scribe and the person who identified the plaintiff. It is noteworthy that the person who identified the plaintiff was an advocate, and the plaintiff in his testimony admitted that he had been knowing him for last six years. Further, the plaintiff admitted his photograph as well as his signature on the sale deed.

5. The lower appellate court upon examining the statement of the plaintiff, found that the plaintiff had studied up to class V. It also found that during his cross examination the plaintiff had shown clarity in his thought process, which negated the plea of the plaintiff that he was of unsound mind or weak mental capacity.

6. The payment of consideration to the plaintiff at his residence, prior to the execution of the sale deed, was proved by the testimony of DW1, which was corroborated by the endorsement made, under Section 58 of the Registration Act, by the Sub Registrar, in the sale deed, to the effect that receipt of sale consideration was admitted by the vendor before him. The DW1 also proved his capacity to pay the consideration amount by stating that he has agricultural income as well as household funds, inasmuch as his son is employed in Saudi Arab. By the testimony of the witnesses it was also proved that before the Sub Registrar the document was read out and the plaintiff was made to understand the nature of the same and only thereafter he admitted due execution and receipt of consideration before the Sub Registrar.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant failed to demonstrate that the findings returned by the courts below were perverse or were vitiated for misreading of evidence