Govind Mathur, J. - (1.) BY the judgment dated 6.11.1999, the learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Kolayat set aside the registered sale -deed dated 18.6.1963 relating to Khasara No. 123 Village Ranasar, Tehsil Kolayat. The judgment and decree aforesaid came to be affirmed by the first appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 7.3.2009.
(2.) WHILE pressing this second appeal, the contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the courts below failed to appreciate that no adequate opportunity was given to the appellant -defendant to adduce the evidence. It is also contended that the courts below apparently committed an error while not drawing presumption regarding genuineness of the document, as required to be drawn as per Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act. I have examined the impugned judgments, from the perusal whereof, it is apparent that the evidence of the plaintiff was closed on 13.8.1999 and thereafter on 25.9.1999, 3.11.1999 and on 5.11.1999 opportunity was afforded to the defendant -appellant for adducing the evidence but he failed to avail the same, as such, I do not find any merit in the argument that the opportunity for adducing evidence was not adequately given.
(3.) THE other question regarding presumption as per Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act is concerned, suffice it to note that the fact that the plaintiff came to know about the sale -deed in August, 1993 has not been denied and also that the original document was not produced by the defendant before the trial court. In such circumstance, the presumption sought to be drawn as argued is not available.;