Registered conveyance, oral gift, and limitation principles governed challenge to mortgage and sale deed, with redemption relief rejected.

A registered conveyance carries a presumption of valid execution, and the party impeaching it must rebut that presumption with reliable evidence of fraud, undue influence, or incapacity; on the facts noted, the mortgage deed and sale deed were proved. An oral gift under Mohammedan law requires intention, acceptance, and delivery of possession, and the alleged Will was not established. Redemption could not be sustained where the mortgagee had later acquired the property and the suit had not followed the procedure for redemption under Order 34 CPC. A challenge to the instruments was also time-barred under Articles 58 and 59 of the Limitation Act.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the burden of proving due execution and validity of the registered sale deed lay on the appellant, and whether the sale deed and mortgage deed stood proved; (ii) Whether the plea of oral gift and the alleged Will were established; (iii) Whether the alternative relief of redemption of mortgage could be granted on the facts and in the manner adopted below; (iv) Whether the suit challenging the mortgage deed and sale deed was barred by limitation.

Issue (i): Whether the burden of proving due execution and validity of the registered sale deed lay on the appellant, and whether the sale deed and mortgage deed stood proved?

Analysis: A registered document carries a presumption of valid execution. The evidence of the attesting witness to the mortgage deed and the scribe of the sale deed supported execution by Wali Mohd. The recitals showed receipt of consideration and execution out of free will. The challenge based on mental infirmity, fraud, and undue influence was not substantiated by reliable evidence, and the burden to rebut the registered documents was not discharged by the plaintiff.

Conclusion: The registered mortgage deed and sale deed were validly proved, and the challenge to their execution failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the plea of oral gift and the alleged Will were established?

Analysis: A valid oral gift under Mohammedan law requires intention, acceptance, and delivery of possession. The plaintiff did not prove delivery of possession or subsequent acts consistent with ownership such as mutation, collection of rent, or payment of municipal dues. The surrounding circumstances, including the appellant's possession and assertion of ownership, also contradicted the claim. The alleged Will was found unacceptable.

Conclusion: The oral gift and the alleged Will were not proved.

Issue (iii): Whether the alternative relief of redemption of mortgage could be granted on the facts and in the manner adopted below?

Analysis: The suit was principally one for declaration and cancellation, with redemption pleaded only in the alternative. The mortgagee-appellant had subsequently purchased the property, so the right of redemption qua her stood extinguished by act of parties. The courts below also granted redemption without following the procedure prescribed for redemption suits under Order 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Conclusion: The decree for redemption of mortgage could not be sustained.

Issue (iv): Whether the suit challenging the mortgage deed and sale deed was barred by limitation?

Analysis: A suit for declaration and for cancellation of an instrument must be brought within three years under Articles 58 and 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The plaintiff admitted knowledge of the sale deed in 1971, yet the suit was filed in 1978. The challenge to both instruments was therefore beyond time.

Conclusion: The suit was barred by limitation.

Final Conclusion: The impugned judgment of the High Court could not stand. The appeal succeeded, the suit was dismissed, and the decree of the trial court was restored.

Ratio Decidendi: A registered conveyance is presumed valid, the party impeaching it must prove fraud or undue influence, an oral gift under Mohammedan law is complete only on proof of delivery of possession, and a belated challenge to an instrument is barred by the Limitation Act, 1963.

---