JUDGMENT This is a second appeal by the main defendant, and arises out of a suit for declaration of title and possession of land. The plaintiff succeeded in both the courts below, and the first appeal was also preferred by the present appellant alone. 2 It is not necessary for the purpose of this appeal to state all the pleadings or the pleadings of the other two defendants, who have not appealed. It is enough to state that the plaintiffs allegations were that the land in question belonged to Thambal (whose daughter and heir the present appellant admittedly is) and his brother Tomboi, who are now dead, and they sold it by a registered sale deed to one Kala Singh on 2-11-1942. Kala then gave the land to the plaintiff, but died before he could execute a deed, and his brother and heir Tombi Singh then executed a gift-deed in favour of the plaintiff on 10-11-1949 and got it registered. Plaintiffs application for mutation of her name was opposed and the Revenue Court referred the parties to the Civil Court and defendant No. 2 Gourachand who claims through the appellant also dispossessed the plaintiff. 3 On the other hand the present appellant who claims that the land belonged to her father Thambal only, denied the alleged sale and gift and also the execution of the said sale deed and the gift deed and asserted that sale deed dated 2-11-1942 was a forged document. The Trial Court upheld the contentions of the plaintiff and passed a decree in her favour, and the appeal by the present appellant to the District Court also failed. 4 The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, before me, was that there could be no decree in favour of the plaintiff-appellant as the execution of the two deeds was not proved and there was also no satisfactory evidence to establish the loss or destruction of the sale deed dated 2-11-1942, so as to permit the letting in of the secondary evidence (copy of the sale deed Ext.P/A) under section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act. 5 It has transpired in the evidence and is also not disputed before me, that before 1950, the rule or practice in Manipur was that the Sub-Registrar sent the document of transfer registered by him directly to the Revenue Officer, concerned, for the purpose of mutation, and the sale deed of 1942 in favour of Kala Singh was similarly sent to the Revenue Officer, and a mutation case was started on the basis of that sale deed. The plaintiff not being in possession of the original sale deed, therefore, moved the Trial Court, for obtaining the record of the mutation case connected with that sale, but the record could not be traced and therefore secondary evidence namely, the certified copy (Ext. P/A) was admitted. In these circumstances and when the plaintiff could not be expected to be in possession of the sale deed, there can be no doubt that it was established satisfactorily that the document was not forthcoming from the custody of the Revenue Court in which it was filed. It could be, therefore, safely presumed that it was lost and in my opinion secondary evidence was rightly admitted by the courts below under section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act. 6As regards the proof of execution of the sale deed there is no doubt that there is no oral evidence in support of it. The document was not attested by any witness and the scribe who was examined as a witness by the plaintiff could not recall anything on the basis of the certified copy (Ext. P/A). As already seen the executants of the document are also dead. In these circumstances the contention of the learned counsel of the respondent was that the certificate of the Sub-Registrar certifying the admission of the execution of the document by Thambal Singh and Tomboi Singh was enough to prove the execution of the deed by them. In my opinion that contention must prevail, specially when it is seen that no other evidence was available to the plaintiff. Sections 58,59 and 60 of the Indian Registration Act provide that such facts mentioned in the endorsements may he proved by those endorsements. The same was the view taken by their Lordships of the Privy Council in Ganganioyi Debi v. Troiluckhya Nath. ILR 33 Cal. 537 (A). Sections 58,59 and 60 of the Indian Registration Act provide that such facts mentioned in the endorsements may he proved by those endorsements. The same was the view taken by their Lordships of the Privy Council in Ganganioyi Debi v. Troiluckhya Nath. ILR 33 Cal. 537 (A). Thus the certificate of the Registrar is prima facie evidence of the execution of the document, and I find in the circumstances present in this case and specially when there is no evidence on the side of the defendants to throw any doubt, that the sale deed dated 2-11-1942 was duly executed by Thambal and Tomboi. 7 As regards the gift deed, the mutation case in which it was filed was sent for and produced before the Trial Court, and its execution was duly proved by the scribe Momon Singh (P. W. 2), although it was denied by the executant Tombi Singh (P. W. 7). Momon Singh (P. W. 2), swore that the deed was read over to Tombi Singh and he put his signature on it after admitting the contents of the document as true, and there appears to be no reason why he should not be believed. Thus the execution of the gift deed was also duly proved. 8 The result of my findings also is that the plaintiff was entitled to succeed, and the decrees of the courts below were right. This appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed.