Registered sale deed presumption of due execution prevailed, as impersonation was not proved and no substantial question of law arose.

A registered sale deed carries a presumption of due execution, so the burden rested on the plaintiff to prove impersonation or forgery with reliable evidence. The courts below found, on appraisal of the oral and documentary material, that the deed was executed for consideration and that the plaintiff failed to discharge that burden; the plaintiff also did not enter the witness box, and the expert evidence was inconclusive. Those findings were based on substantive evidence and disclosed no legal infirmity, so no substantial question of law arose in second appeal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned registered sale deed was proved to have been executed by the plaintiff or was liable to be cancelled on the plea of impersonation, and whether any substantial question of law arose in second appeal.

Analysis: The sale deed carried the endorsement of registration and, as a registered document, attracted a presumption of due execution by the person who purported to execute it. The burden lay on the plaintiff to establish impersonation by reliable and unimpeachable evidence. The courts below, on appraisal of the oral and documentary evidence, found that the deed had been executed for consideration and that the plaintiff had failed to prove forgery or impersonation. The plaintiff himself did not enter the witness box during the long pendency of the suit, while the expert evidence led by both sides was found unsatisfactory and non-conclusive. The findings recorded by the courts below were based on substantive evidence and did not disclose any legal infirmity.

Conclusion: The sale deed was not shown to be forged or executed by an impostor, and no substantial question of law arose for consideration.

---