Law: Registration Act, 1908

Section: 28

  Registration Act (XVI of 1908), S. 28-Registration of documents-Onus of proving evasion of registration laws Generally lies on person challenging validity of registration-Document ex facie disclosing property included in it to be hardly capable of effective enjoymentOnus, to prove validity of registration, shifts on person relying on document.   No wide proposition of law can be laid down to the effect that in every case the person relying on the document must first discharge the onus of establishing that there has been no evasion of the Registration Laws.   In a case where the document ex facie discloses that the property is so insignificant that it is hardly capable of effective enjoyment, the onus would, by reason of that fact alone, be shifted upon the person seeking to rely upon that document to show that it was nevertheless a validly registered document. But in a case where the property does exist and is capable of effective enjoyment, it cannot be said that even in such a case the onus would still be upon the person relying upon the document to prove that the transferor had title to the transferred property. In such a case, there is a presumption in favour of the validity of registration.   Harendra Lal Pat Chaudhury v. Hari Dasi Debi and others 41 I A 110; Biswanath Prasad and others v. Chandra Narayan Chaudhry and others 48 I A 127; 25 C W N 985; Collector of Gorakhpur v. Rarer Sundar Mal and others 61 1 A 286; Raja Inuganti Venkataroma Rao v. Raja Sobhanadari Appa Rao Bahadur Garu and others 63 1 A 169; Irshad Ali v. Mst. Nadari Begum A I R 1941 All. 179; Chhotabhai Motibhai and others v. Dadabhai Narandas and others A I R 1935 Born. 54; Sudhir Chandra Sett and another v. Syed Abdulla-ul- Musavi and others 22 C W N 894; Gopi Nath and others v. Rup Ram and others A I R 1930 All. 786 and Sultan Ahmad Khan v. Sirajul Haque and others A I R 1938 All 170 ref.      JUDGMENT   RAHMAN, J.----This appeal is against the decision of the Subordinate Judge, 3rd Court, Comilla, affirming that of the Munsif, 4th Court, Comilla, in Title Suit No. 237 of 1946.   This suit was instituted by the respondents before me for a…