The presumption of validity of a registered document and the distinction between voidable and void documents were central to the court's decision.

Alok Aradhe, J:-

This appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff. This Court vide order dated 13.4.1998 while admitting the appeal had formulated the following substantial question of law: -

"A. Whether the lower appellate Court was right in reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court on the ground that the appellant was not entitled to a decree of entire house even though the sale deed was found to be totally illegal and without consideration?

B. Whether the joint decree between the appellant and the respondent No. 2 could be granted?

2. Facts giving rise to filing of the appeal briefly stated are that the plaintiff filed a suit inter - alia on the ground that suit house was constructed by her father late Madan Mohan approximately thirty years ago. Admittedly, the defendant No. 2 is the mother of the plaintiff. It was pleaded in the plaint that defendant No. 2 have equal share in the suit house, therefore, defendant No. 2 alone had no authority to alienate the suit house. It was also pleaded that defendant No. 2 was not in a fit mental condition after the death of her husband and son and defendant No. 1 taking advantage of the situation, got the sale deed executed in his favour on 2.3.1987 without payment of any consideration. Since the sale consideration was not paid, a mortgage deed on the same day was executed in favour of defendant No. 2. It was also pleaded that on 1.3.1987, the defendant No. 1 forcibly took possession of the part of the suti house and on 5.5.1987 threatened the plaintiff with dispossession. Accordingly, the plaintiff filed the suit seeking the relief of declaration that she is owner of the suit house and the sale deed dated 2.3.1987 executed by defendant No. 2 in favour of defendant No. 1 is null and void. The plaintiff sought a decree for possession as well as permanent injunction restraining the defendant No. 1 from interfering with her possession over the suit house.

3. The defendant No. 1 filed the written statement in which inter-alia it was pleaded that defendant No. 2 was the owner of the suit house and she hau the authority to sell the suit house. The defendant No.2 was ina fit physical and mental condition to execute the sale deed. The sale deed had been executed by her voluntarily on receipt of consideration. It was also pleaded that defendant No. 2 placed defendant No. 1 in possession of part of the suit house and assured him that possession of the remaining portion shall also be handed over to him. The defendant No. 2 did not file any written statement and was proceeded ex-parte.

4. The trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 29.3.1993 decreed the suit preferred by the plaintiff. The trial Court on the basis of documentary evidence on record namely Ex. P/2, P/3 and D/l as well as the statement of defendant's witness namely Gulam Hussain DW-4 held that suit house was constructed by father of the plaintiff. It was further held that plaintiff and defendant No. 2 are the co-owners and were in possession of the suit house being the legal representative of late Madan Mohan. The trial Court on the basis of the statement of plaintiff namely PW-1 as well as Krishna Kumar PW-2 and Praveen Kumar PW-3 held that sale consideration was not paid to defendant No. 2 as witnesses to the sale deed have stated in their statement that the sale consideration was not paid to the defendant No. 2. The trial Court further held that there is inconsistency and contradiction in the statements of DW-1 Mohd. Ramjan, DW-2 Ansarul Haq, DW-3 Ramesh Prasad, DW-4 Gulam Hussain and DW-5 Babu with regard to payment of sale consideration. It was also held by the trial Court that defendant No. 1 executed the mortgage deed Ex.P/3 on the same day in favour of defendant No. 2 as the sale consideration was not paid to her. It was further held by the trial Court that defendant No. 1 has not been able to prove that the suit house was sold for legal necessity. It was also held that defendant No. 2's son had died on 4.1.19