A registered sale deed creates a legal presumption of valid execution, and the burden of proof lies on the party challenging its validity.

JUDGMENT

This appeal arises from the judgment and decree dated

23.3.2015 passed by the Additional District Court, Irinjalakkuda in A.S.No.12 of 2008. The Appeal Suit arose from O.S.No.392 of 2006 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge’s Court, Irinjalakkuda. The defendant is the appellant. The plaintiff is the respondent.

2. Material facts relevant for the adjudication of this appeal are briefly narrated below:- 2.1. The plaint schedule property is 59.5 cents of land comprised in S.Nos.1422/2 and 1423/2 of Alathur Village. The property originally belonged to the plaintiff. The plaintiff executed a sale deed in respect of this property as deed No.2689/04 dated 25.8.2004 (Ext.B1)

in favour of the defendant.

2.2. The plaintiff pleaded that on the date of execution of the sale deed, the plaintiff had borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the defendant, who is a money lender, and as a security for the transaction Ext.B1 sale deed was executed. According to the plaintiff, he had retained possession of the plaint schedule property with him.

The plaintiff further pleaded that on 25.8.2004 itself, the parties entered into an oral agreement in which the defendant had agreed to re-convey the plaint schedule property on payment of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. Towards the oral karar, the plaintiff paid Rs.10,000/- on 5.3.2005 and Rs.14,500/- on 30.7.2005 as advance. On 4.8.2006, the plaintiff requested the defendant to re- convey the plaint schedule property after receipt of the amount due to him. The defendant refused to execute the sale deed as requested by the plaintiff.

2.3. The defendant resisted the suit contending that he never lent money to the plaintiff. The defendant had paid Rs.1,78.500/- to the plaintiff on 25.8.2004 and purchased the plaint schedule property. Immediately after the execution of the assignment deed in respect of the plaint schedule property, the defendant was given possession of the same. The plaintiff has no right or possession over the property. The oral contract alleged to have been entered into between the parties is baseless. The defendant never agreed to re- convey the property as pleaded by the plaintiff. Payment of the advance amount as pleaded by the plaintiff is also false. There was a jack fruit tree in the plaint schedule property which was sold to the plaintiff and towards the value of that tree the plaintiff had paid Rs.10,000/- and at the time of cutting and removing the tree a sum of Rs.14,500/- more was given.

3. The parties went to trial. PWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A5 were marked on the side of the plaintiff and DW1 was examined and Exts.B1 to B7 were marked on the side of the defendant. Exts.C1 and C1(a) were marked as Court exhibits.

4. The trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff is not entitled to the specific performance of the contract as pleaded.

5. The plaintiff challenged the decree and judgment of the Trial Court by filing A.S.No.12 of 2008 before the District Court. The First Appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and decreed the suit allowing the plaintiff specific performance of the contract on deposit of Rs.76,500/- with interest at the rate of 12%

per annum from 25.8.2004.

6. The defendant is in appeal challenging the judgment of the First Appellate Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

7. This Court admitted the appeal and formulated the following substantial questions of law:- “1. Does not Exhibit B1 deed of sale carry a mandatory presumption under section 34(2)(a) of the Registration Act with regard to its execution and registration, and in the absence of pleadings or evidence tendered by the plaintiff to rebut such presumption, whether the appellate court was justified in granting a decree for specific performance with regard to the property covered by Exhibit B1 on the strength of the interested oral evidence of the plaintiff alone?

2. Is not the presumption with regard to