The presumption of validity of a registered document over 30 years old supports plaintiffs' ownership claims, requiring the defendants to provide substantial evidence for opposing claims.

JUDGMENT

Legal heirs of defendants 1 and 2 in a suit for recovery of possession, aggrieved by the concurrent findings rendered against them are in appeal before this Court.

2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:-

The plaintiffs sued the original defendants 1 and 2, under Paattadharam, executed in favour of one Veemban in the year 1930. The plaintiffs claimed during the subsistence of the Paattadharam, one of the brother of Veemban, namely Kambi acquired the rights over the property by payment of Rs.50/-, which is endorsed in the Paattadharam. The defendants resisted the suit by contending that the devolution of title in favour of the plaintiffs is not correct and that the property was originally purchased by the grand father of the 1^st defendant and Veemban. It was further contended that on death of Kambi, there was an oral partition among the parties and certain properties were allotted to the share of Velan and on the death of the Velan, the legal heirs of Velan had assigned the property in favour of the 1^st defendant. That apart the endorsement made in the Paattadharam was also disputed by saying that the relinquishment of right, if any, in respect of the property in question, could not have been made through an endorsement. In addition to that, the identity of the property was also disputed. On behalf the plaintiffs, Exts.A1 to A3 documents were produced and PW1 was examined. On behalf of the defendants, Exts.B1 and B2 documents were produced and DW1, son of the original 1^st defendant, was examined. No other evidence was let in by the defendants. The trial court on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence concluded that there is a presumption as regards Ext.A1 Paattadharam , since it is a registered document more than 30 years old and therefore the plaintiffs are entitled to get the benefit of the presumption under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 . As regards the endorsement made in Ext.A1, the trial court concluded that the plaintiffs were successful in proving the endorsement and accordingly decreed the suit. Aggrieved, defendants 1 and 2 preferred A.S No.19/2003 before the Additional District Court, Ottapalam, by judgment dated 12.04.2013, the appeal was dismissed, confirming the judgment of the trial court and hence the present appeal.

3. On 05.09.2013, this Court framed the following substantial questions of law for consideration:-

(i) When Ext.A1 'Paattadharam' itself shows that the annual rent payable is Rs.150/-, is it not reasonable to hold that the value of the property is much more than Rs.150/- and if so, can there be an assignment of that 'Paattom' right by a mere endorsement without a registered assignment deed ?

(ii) When a purported assignment is recorded on the reverse of a document which is neither attested by witnesses nor it is proved to have been executed by the title holder, can such an assignment deed be relied on for any purpose?

(iii) Did not the courts below commit illegality in relying on the endorsement in Ext.A1 as a sale deed in the absence of proof of attestation of such sale by a document ?

(iv) When it is proved that the Defendants are in possession of the property on the basis of an alleged derivation of title as an ancestral property and when such a case is probable, are not the courts below wrong in discarding the case pleaded and proved by the Defendants which justify their possession and title ?

4. Heard Shri.K.V.Sohan, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants assisted by Shri.Athul Sohan and Shri.P.Jayaram, the learned counsel appearing for respo