Registered conveyance and oral reconveyance claim failed where the presumption of execution was not rebutted.

A registered sale deed carries a prima facie presumption of due execution and genuineness, and the burden lies on the challenger to rebut it with cogent evidence; that presumption was not displaced here. An alleged oral agreement for reconveyance can support specific performance only if a concluded contract and consensus ad idem are proved by reliable evidence; the plaintiff failed to do so, as interested oral testimony was insufficient. The circumstances relied on, including possession and delivery of prior title deeds, did not override the effect of the registered conveyance, and the first appellate court misapplied the burden of proof. The decree for specific performance was therefore unsustainable and the trial court's dismissal of the suit was restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the registered sale deed carried a presumption of due execution and registration, and whether that presumption was rebutted; (ii) whether the plaintiff proved an oral agreement for reconveyance so as to justify specific performance; (iii) whether the circumstances relied on by the first appellate court, including possession and delivery of prior title deeds, displaced the effect of the registered conveyance.

Issue (i): Whether the registered sale deed carried a presumption of due execution and registration, and whether that presumption was rebutted.

Analysis: A registered document is prima facie valid, and the burden lies on the party assailing it to adduce cogent evidence to rebut the presumption of due execution and genuineness. The plaintiff relied only on interested oral testimony, while the evidence did not satisfactorily displace the legal effect of the registered conveyance.

Conclusion: The presumption attached to the registered deed was not rebutted.

Issue (ii): Whether the plaintiff proved an oral agreement for reconveyance so as to justify specific performance.

Analysis: An oral agreement for sale is legally permissible, but a decree for specific performance requires convincing and reliable proof of a concluded contract and consensus ad idem. On the evidence, the plaintiff failed to establish the alleged oral arrangement with the necessary cogency, and the interested testimony of the plaintiff and his wife was insufficient to sustain the claim.

Conclusion: The oral agreement for reconveyance was not proved.

Issue (iii): Whether the circumstances relied on by the first appellate court, including possession and delivery of prior title deeds, displaced the effect of the registered conveyance.

Analysis: The execution of the sale deed established title in the defendant, and the plaintiff failed to prove continuing possession. The handing over of prior title deeds after the sale was consistent with an actual sale and did not indicate a money transaction. The first appellate court misapplied the burden of proof and the relevant evidentiary principles.

Conclusion: The first appellate court's reasons could not sustain the decree for specific performance.

Final Conclusion: The decree for specific performance was unsustainable, and the trial court's dismissal of the suit stood restored.

Ratio Decidendi: A decree for specific performance on the basis of an alleged oral reconveyance can be granted only on cogent and reliable evidence sufficient to rebut the presumption arising from a registered conveyance; mere interested oral testimony and unsupported inferences do not discharge that burden.

---