ASAFUDDAULA BEG Vs. RAM RATAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendants appeal arising out of a suit for possession over certain property which is described in the plaint. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court. The lower Appellate Court however has granted decree for joint possession. Two of the defendants have challenged this order and the plaintiff has preferred a cross- objection. Shortly put, the plaintiff's case is that the property in suit was purchased in 1887 from one Mujtaba Beg and his sons and daughter and the mother of his wife Mumtaz Begam. The property is described in the sale-deed as property inherited by the executants of the deed from Mujtaba Beg's wife Mumtaz Begam.

(2.) In appeal in this Court the main argument advanced by the appellants was that the sale deed of 1887, which is the title deed of the plaintiff, was not proved. The original was not produced. A certified copy of the deed however was filed. Learned counsel for the appellants maintained that this was not sufficient. He argued that the production of a copy of a deed more than thirty years old raised no presumption as to the execution of the original. In support of this argument he referred to the decision of the Privy Council in Basant Singh V/s. Brij Raj Saran Singh (1933) 22 AIR PC 132. In the course of the judgment of the Board in that case it was declared that the production of a copy of a deed was not sufficient to justify the presumption of due execution of the original under Section 90, Evidence Act. Had the plaintiff done nothing more therefore than produce a certified copy of the original deed of the year 1887 he would not have succeeded in establishing his title to the property in suit. But in this case he had done something more. The evidence which has been adduced by the plaintiff in proof of his title has been considered in detail by the learned Civil Judge in the course of his judgment. That evidence may be summarized thus: (1) The certified copy of the sale deed. (2) A deposition by one Ata Beg, the grandson of Husain Ali Khan, of whose estate the property in suit is alleged to have formed part This deposition was made in the year 1912 in Suit No. 124 of 1911. Ata Beg was one of the identifying witnesses of the executants of the sale deed of the year 1887 in the registration office and in the course of his deposition he refers to the deed. (3) The evidence of a number of witnesses who deposed to the possession of the plaintiff; witnesses whose testimony has been accepted by the learned Civil Judge.

(3.) In my judgment this evidence is sufficient to prove the execution of the sale deed of 1887. The certified copy is a copy obtained from a public register. There is no suggestion of any fraud or collusion. The vendees and their successor have been in possession of the property purported to be conveyed by the deed. The deed is referred to by one Ata Beg. It was not in his interest to admit the execution of this deed because it conveyed property which had formed part of the estate of his ancestor Husain Ali Khan. He is admittedly one of the identifying witnesses of the executants of the deed at the registration office. There was ample evidence upon record in my opinion to justify the learned Civil Judge in holding that the deed upon which the plaintiff founded and of which a certified copy only was produced was in fact executed in the year 1887.