Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6 In order to prove their claim over the suit property the plaintiff has produced on record sale deed. It was in modi script and, therefore, it was got translated by the plaintiff and the Translator has been examined as PW 3 Kashinath. It is to be noted that the consideration that has been stated in that document is Rs.15/-. It was not compulsorily registrable document because the value of the same is below Rs.100/-. The document appears to have been correctly exhibited and the provisions of Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act have been properly applied. When the sale deed itself has been produced on record by the person who had purchased the suit property, that is, the document is coming on record from proper custody, then presumption was bound to follow. Further, not only in respect of ownership but there are documents showing that the plaintiff has paid the necessary taxes to the Grampanchayat. Further, it can be seen that the defendant No.4 was coming up with the specific defence that he is the owner of the said property and it is part and parcel of Sy.No.1, which is known as 'Gadhi'. The learned Trial Judge as well as First Appellate Court both have considered that the present appellant has not produced any documentary evidence to support his contention. Under such circumstance, the view taken by both the Courts 4 CA_1584_2016 below on the basis of assessment of oral as well as documentary evidence and the legal point therein involved is correct. No substantial question of law is arising, as contemplated under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Hence, the Second Appeal stands dismissed. Civil Application No.1585 of 2016 stands disposed of.