The record is taken up for passing the necessary order. This is a suit for the cancellation of the deed. Perused the plaint, deposition of the plaintiff as P.W- 01, the documentary evidences available on the case record.
Upon consideration of the materials on
record, it appears that the plaintiff’s case has been proved by evidence as
well as sufficient implications that the defendant executed the suit deed by
practicing fraud upon the plaintiff who never intended the same to be executed.
It appears that the facts of the deed were reduced into the deed through active
concealment of the quantity of lands to the plaintiff. Besides, the PW-01
claimed that he is still in possession of the suit land comprised in the schedule
to the plaint. So, the deed in question is not acted upon. Nothing is proved to
be contrary. So, it is proved that the deed is yet to be acted upon against the
plaintiff. It is well settled that a
fraudulent deed is voidable at the option of the person upon whom such fraud is
practiced. The plaintiff prays here for the cancelation of the suit deed.
Furthermore, no doubt the suit deed is a
registered deed. Under sections 59-60 of the Registration Act read with
sections 79 and 114 (illustration e) of the Evidence Act, there arises a
presumption that the very deed was duly presented and registered. Here is the
general rule of law that [a] registered document carries the presumption of
correctness of the endorsement made therein and that one who disputes the said
presumption is under the law required to dislodge the correctness of the
endorsement in the registered document (vide 55 DLR AD 39). Since it becomes
decisive to the court that the suit deed was not acted upon and the plaintiff
is now in the possession of the suit lands, and the deed in question was
provably executed and registered by way of practicing fraud upon the plaintiff,
it is the court’s view that the presumption of correctness of the endorsement
of the suit deed is rebutted with convincing and sufficient evidence.
So, the cumulative effect and cogency of
legal inference help the court hold that the plaintiff has proved his case, and
thus, the suit deserves to be decreed. As such, it is decided that the
plaintiff may get the relief as prayed for.
The court fee paid is
sufficient.
Hence, it is ordered
that
the suit is decreed ex parte against
the defendants without costs. The suit deed as scheduled to the plaint is
hereby canceled. The concerned Sub-Registrar is directed to take note of its
cancellation on the copy of the suit deed contained in the concerned volume of
his office and also ordered to report the same to the court.
Let
a copy of this order be sent to the Sub-Registry Office concerned at once.