Shahida vs *1. Abdul Hameed on 27 March, 2012
193) and Kalu v. Bapurao (AIR 1950 Nagpur 6) as
S.A.724/1998. 15
authority for the proposition that, in cases where
S.68 of the Evidence Act has no a application, the
certificate of registration in the light of the
presumption in S.114 Illustration (e) of the
Evidence Act is evidence of execution and can, in
fit cases, be accepted as proof thereof and with
the contrary view expressed in Salimatul-Fatima
alias Bibi Mossini v. Koylashpoti Narain Singh, (I.
L. R.17 Calcutta 903), Marati Balaji v. Dattu (AIR
1923 Bombay 253) and Bulakidas Hardas v. Chotu
Paikan (AIR 1942 Nagpur 84) neither what is said
in the Privy Council decisions nor the wording of
S.60(2) of the Registration Act lends the least
support to the statement in the last mentioned
case that the certificate is only corroborative and
not substantive evidence; the section says that the
certificate is admissible for proving certain facts
which can only mean that it is substantive
evidence regarding those facts I must express my
respectful dissent.