RSA 206/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. UC Rabha, learned counsel for the appellant. This appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree dated 2 2nd December, 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Barpeta in Title Appeal No.12/2010 upholding the judgment and decree dated 19th Decembe r, 2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), No.1, Barpeta in Ti tle Suit No.149/2008 dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. The appellant as plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit for declaration of righ t, title and interest in respect of 4 Kathas 12 Lechas of land covered by Dag No .16 of Periodic Patta No.1 of Village- Udmari under Titapani Mouza and also for declaration that the registered sale deed No.1987/2007 dated 12th October, 2007 executed in favour of the defendant as illegal, inoperative and null and void, c ontending inter alia that before leaving for Hoj on 14th December, 2006, the def endant obtained the plaintiff’s signature in blank paper, which was subsequently converted to sale permission for transfer of the aforesaid land measuring 4 Kat has 12 Lechas and thereafter, got the sale deed executed in his favour on 12th O ctober, 2007. The defendant contested the suit by filing written statement cont ending inter alia that the plaintiff before leaving for Hoj proposed to sale the aforesaid land described in Schedule-B to the defendant at the price of Rs.63,7 00/-, out of which, an amount of Rs.50,000/- was paid in advance and payment of the remaining amount as well as the execution of the registered sale deed was m ade after return of the plaintiff from the Hoj. It has also been contended that before leaving for Hoj, the plaintiff put the defendant into possession. The learned Trial Court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed the following issues for consideration and decision:- 1. Whether there is cause of action for the Suit? 2. Whether the Plaintiff has right, title and interest over the Schedule ’B’ lan d? 3. Whether the Sale deed No.1987/07 is illegal and null and void in the eye of l aw? 4. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for in the suit? 5. To what other relief or reliefs the parties are entitled for? While the plaintiff examined 3(three) witnesses in support of her claim, the def endant examined 4(four) witnesses. Both the parties have also exhibited a numbe r of documents including the sale deed being Exhibit-1. The witnesses were cros s-examined by the respective parties. The learned Trial Court upon appreciation of the evidences on record has dismiss ed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 19th December, 2008 by holding that t hough the plaintiff has claimed that she never executed the sale deed being sale deed No.1987/2007, she has failed to adduce any evidence to prove that the sign atures appearing in the sale deed are not her signatures and on the other hand, the defendant could prove the due execution of the sale deed, which was register ed on 12th October, 2007. The learned Court below has also taken into considerat ion the evidence of the officer of the Registrar’s office. Being aggrieved the appellant preferred Title Appeal No.12/2010 before the learn ed First Appellate Court, which was also dismissed by the judgment and decree da ted 22nd December, 2010 by affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learn ed Court below. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that since the ap pellant did not execute the sale deed being deed No.1987/2007, the learned Court below ought not to have dismissed the suit of the plaintiff on the basis of the factum of registration of such sale deed. It appears from the judgment and decrees passed by the learned Courts below that the registration of the sale deed being Exhibit-1 has been proved. Though the plaintiff has contended that her signature has been forged, she, however, could not produce any cogent evidence to prove such allegation. On the other hand, th e defendant could prove the due execution as well as the registration of the doc ument. Section 60 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 provides for issuance of the cer tificate of registration. Sub-Section (2) thereof provides that such certifica te shall be signed, sealed and dated by the registering officer, and shall then be admissible for the purpose of proving that the document has been duly registe red in manner provided by this Act, and that the facts mentioned in the endorsem ents referred to in Section 59 have occurred as therein mentioned. Section 59 pr ovides that the registering authority shall affix the date and his signature to all endorsements made under Sections 52 and 58, relating to the same document an d made in his presence on the same day. Section 58 stipulates the particulars t o be endorsed on the document admitted, which includes the signatures of every p erson admitting the execution of the document as well as the payment of money in presence of the registering authority. The endorsements made by the registering authority in Exhibit-1 has been duly pr oved by the defendant through DW-4, which also contains the endorsement relating to the due execution of the deed by the plaintiff, apart from the payment of mo ney. Hence, the presumption has to be drawn about the due execution of the sale deed, unless of course, it is rebutted, which the plaintiff has failed to do. In view of the above, I am of the view that no substantial question of law is in volved to admit the appeal and hence, the same is dismissed.