JAMILA BEGUM (D) THR. LRS v. SHAMI MOHD. (D) THR. LRS & Anr.

First appellate court – Jurisdiction – Scope of – Held: Court of first appeal has jurisdiction to reverse or affirm the findings of trial court – When first appellate court takes a different view, its judgment must show conscious application of mind and record its findings based on the evidence and reasons for taking a different view. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 The mortgage deed dated 21.11.1967 (Ex.74 Kha.) was executed by ‘W’ for Rs.11,000/- in favour of appellant and ‘S’. DW-4 attesting witness of the mortgage deed was examined who has stated about the execution of mortgage deed JAMILA BEGUM (D) THR. LRS. v. SHAMI MOHD. (D) THR. LRS. 1255 and thus, the appellants have proved the execution of mortgage deed in accordance with law. There is also mention about the mortgage deed dated 21.11.1967 in the sale deed dated 21.12.1970 and that ‘W’ was not in a position to repay the mortgage deed amount of Rs.11,000/-. The respondent No.1-plaintiff has not adduced any reliable evidence of proof to establish that the mortgage deed was not executed by ‘W’ out of his free will or without any consideration. [Para 11][1266B-C]

1.2 ‘W’ sold the suit property for Rs.30,000/- to the appellant by a registered sale deed dated 21.12.1970 (Ex.75 Kha.). The recitals in the registered sale deed are natural and cogent showing that it was validly executed. The sale deed refers to the mortgage deed dated 21.11.1967 and that ‘W’ received Rs.11,000/- from the mortgagees – appellant and the co-mortgagee. Recitals in the sale deed also refer to the fact that the house was in the possession of the tenants and that the rental income was Rs.1440/-. The recitals in the sale deed makes a clear reference to the receipt of sale consideration of Rs.30,000/- [Para 12] [1266-D-E]

1.3 Sale deed dated 21.12.1970 in favour of the appellant is a registered document and the registration of the sale deed reinforces valid execution of the sale deed. A registered document carries with it a presumption that it was validly executed. It is for the party challenging the genuineness of the transaction to show that the transaction is not valid in law. [Para 14]