Sale deed proof by admissions and surrounding evidence upheld; adverse possession failed, and concurrent findings were left undisturbed in second appeal.

Execution of a registered sale deed may be proved by admissions, surrounding circumstances and other reliable evidence even without examining the scribe or attesting witnesses; Section 67 of the Evidence Act does not require one exclusive mode of proof, and the deed was therefore held proved. The plea of adverse possession failed because the record did not establish continuous hostile possession for the requisite period. In second appeal, concurrent findings of fact could not be disturbed absent perversity, illegality or findings based on no evidence, so the decree in favour of the plaintiffs was maintained.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the execution of the registered sale deed of 1975 was proved despite non-examination of the scribe and attesting witnesses; (ii) whether the defendant had established adverse possession and whether the concurrent findings of the courts below could be interfered with in second appeal.

Issue (i): whether the execution of the registered sale deed of 1975 was proved despite non-examination of the scribe and attesting witnesses.

Analysis: The sale deed was supported by surrounding and circumstantial evidence, including admissions in a petition filed by the defendants, the purchaser's testimony, the absence of objection when the document was exhibited, and the evidence showing presence of the parties at the time of execution. The Court held that Section 67 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 does not prescribe any single exclusive mode of proof, and execution may be established by admissions and other reliable evidence. Mere registration or exhibition by itself is not enough, but in the facts of the case the document stood proved.

Conclusion: The execution of the sale deed was proved and the finding was upheld in favour of the respondents.

Issue (ii): whether the defendant had established adverse possession and whether the concurrent findings of the courts below could be interfered with in second appeal.

Analysis: The materials on record did not establish continuous hostile possession for the requisite period. The Court also reiterated that under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 it cannot reappreciate evidence or disturb concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse, contrary to law, or based on no evidence. The findings below were based on evidence and did not suffer from any such infirmity.

Conclusion: The plea of adverse possession failed and the concurrent findings of the courts below were not open to interference.

Final Conclusion: The second appeal was found to be without merit and the decree in favour of the plaintiffs was maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: In a second appeal, a disputed sale deed may be proved by admissions, surrounding circumstances, and other reliable evidence even without examining the scribe or attesting witnesses, and concurrent findings of fact on such proof and on adverse possession cannot be disturbed unless shown to be perverse or unlawful.

---