The main legal point established in the judgment is the presumption of correctness of the Sub-Registrar's endorsement in a registered document under section 58 of the Registration Act, 1908, and the burden of proof on the plaintiff to establish her illiteracy in challenging a sale deed.

JUDGMENT

Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 6-7-1993 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Panna in Civil Appeal No. 70-A/92, whereby the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court dismissing the suit of plaintiff has been" set aside by allowing the appeal of plaintiff and decreeing her suit, this second appeal has been filed by defendant No. 1 Mahadev Prasad Khare.

2. A suit was filed by the plaintiff to cancel the sale deed dated 26-7-1976 executed between plaintiff and defendant No. 1 Mahadev Prasad Khare with a further relief to deliver possession of the suit property which is agricultural land and the description whereof has been mentioned in the plaint.

3. According to the plaintiff she is an illiterate person and is widow for the last 20 years. There is no male member in her family to look after her property. Defendant No. 1 Mahadev Prasad Khare happened to be her cousin brother and she was having faith in him. According to the plaintiff, since, defendant No. 1 is her brother in distinct relation, therefore, the suit property was given to him on the basis of crop share w.e.f. 1975. Defendant No. 1 on 25-7-1976 pacified her that for agricultural purpose he has to contact several revenue authorities and, therefore, there is need of power of attorney and the same be executed by the plaintiff in his favour by getting that document registered. The plaintiff became ready and went to the office of Sub Registrar on 26-7-1976. A document was written but the same was not read over and explained to her and under the pretext of power of attorney, without getting the document read over and explained to her the same was executed and she put her signature on the document.

4. In paras 1 and 6 of the plaint specific averment of the plaintiff is that she is an illiterate lady and cannot read.

5. Defendant No. 1 was sharing the crop with her every year, but ultimately all of a sudden the same was stopped in May, 1990 and when she inquired the matter, she came to know that fraudulently the document of sale-deed was got executed by taking undue advantage of her being an illiterate lady. According to the plaintiff, the value of the suit property on 26-7-1976 when the alleged sale-deed was got executed was not less than Rs. 50,000/- and, therefore, the same could not be sold on meagre amount of consideration of Rs. 2,500/- only and even this amount was not paid to her by defendant No. 1.

6. According to the plaintiff, defendant No. 1 is illegally possessing the suit property w.e.f. May-June, 1990 and she is entitled to get back possession of the suit property. On these premised pleadings, the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff for the reliefs which I have mentioned hereinabove.

7. Defendant No. 1 whose LRs. are appellants, by filing written statement refuted the plaint averments and specifically denied that plaintiff is an illiterate lady. According to him, plaintiff is an educated and healthy lady. Specifically it has been denied by defendant No. 1 that he is the brother of plaintiff from any angle. He is also not the resident of the village of plaintiff. The factum of giving land on crop share basis has been specifically denied by him in para 3 of his written statement. According to him, he is a Central Government employee holding the post of 'Post Master' and he retired from this post on 31-7-1979. Since he was posted out-side district of Panna, therefore, the question of cultivating the land on behalf of plaintiff on crop share basis w.e.f. 1975 does not arise.

8. The averment of plaintiff that under the pretext of getting the document of power of attorney executed the sale-deed was executed, has been specifically denied by defendant in para 5 of his written statement. Further it has been pleaded by defendant No. 1 that plaintiff is an literate lady and she has also executed several sale-deeds and other documents. According to defendant No. 1, after having sold the suit property to him, he is possessing th