Ponnan Vs Kuttipennu

M.P. Menon, J.@mdashThere are no doubt decisions which observe that in view of Sections 34 and 35 of the Registration Act which empower or cast a duty on the Sub Registrar to enquire about the identity of the executant and the factum of execution, due registration could be treated as some evidence of execution by the person figuring as executant in the document; but this is only a presumption attaching to official acts, which could be rebutted. Thee is enough authority to show that the decision of the Sub Registrar is not binding on a court before which execution is denied; in such a case, the court can give due weight to the factum of registration. But the final decision should rest on the court''s own assessment of the facts and circumstances placed before it. For example, one of the executants of a document might have claimed in it that he was a major at the time; but the Sub Registrar was not required to enquire into the truth of such a claim, in such a manner as to give a binding decision. His opinion as to the age of the executant at the time of registration cannot be treated as evidence, muchless conclusive evidence, by a court of law. Sub-section (2) of Section 60 of the Registration Act deals with the effect of a certificate of registration, and there is no provision in the Registration Act to the effect that registration should be deemed to be conclusive proof of even execution. On the other hand, the proviso to Section 68 of the Evidence Act shows that so far as proof of execution of a document is concerned, the calling of an attesting witness can be dispensed with, where the document is registered and execution is not specifically denied, suggesting thereby that the factum of registration cannot by itself amount to proof of execution, where the executant denies it. There are also authorities which suggest that denial of execution includes denial of attestation also.