T. N. VALHNAYAGAM, J. ( 1 ) THE plaintiff is the appellant. The suit for possession based on title was dismissed by the trial court and which dismissal came to be confirmed by the first appellate court. Hence the plaintiff is before this Court. . ( 2 ) THE plaintiff claims that the defendants art the original tenants and has filed the h. R. C. Petition. But as the title was disputed, the plaintiff was obliged to file the present suit for possession in a civil court. ( 3 ) THE defence was that the defendants are the owners of the land and they were living with the mother of the first defendant. As they are the son and daughter-in-law they denied tenancy and the specific case was that"the mother in law of 2nd defendant had never executed the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. It is a fictitious one and the signature also may be a forged one". Accepting the version of the defendants, the courts below have dismissed the suit. Now the question before me is whether Siddamma did really sell the property and if she sells the property how the defendants can continue to be in possession. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the respondents relying upon Section 67 of the Evidence act contended that even if it is a registered document, the execution should be proved and the signature must also be proved. In this case, the person who executed the document namely siddamma died in 1974 and the document came to be executed in 1964 i. e. 10 years prior to the death of Siddamma and the document is sought to be questioned in 1998 after a period of 17 years. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel placed his reliance on a decision in H. Venkatachala v. B. N. Thimmajamma for the following proposition. "under section 67, if a document is alleged to be signed by any person the signature of the said person must be proved to be in his hand-writing, and for proving such a handwriting under sections 45 and 47 of the Act the opinions of experts and of persons acquainted with the handwriting of the person concerned and made relevant. "reliance was also placed on a division Bench ruling of this court in Narayanachar v. Venkatanathan. "reliance was also placed on a division Bench ruling of this court in Narayanachar v. Venkatanathan. ( 6 ) ON the basis of the above dictums it is contended by the learned counsel that in the absence of proof of the execution of the document by Siddamma the sale is not valid in the eye of law and the same should be rejected as has been rightly ignored by the courts below. I do not agree. The first case relied upon by the learned counsel is the case of Will and the facts of that case do not apply to the facts of this case. Infact, in para 18 of the said judgment the Supreme Court has considered and started the paragraph by a question"what is the true legal position in the matter of proof of Wills? It is well known that the proof of the Will presents a recurring topic for decision in Courts and etc. ". Therefore, concerning the proof of Will the obsea-ation came to be made covering both section 67 and 68. Therefore, that decision is not applicable to the facts of this case at all. ( 7 ) THE Division Bench ruling is also concerning with Sections 67 and 68 of the Act. But it is nodoubt true that the Division Bench mean that any document registered against the right the presumption of validity under the registration Act and that must be proof of execution. But the Division Bench has made it clear, in para 8 as :"but it does not prove execution of the document itself, should, however, be noted that if there is admission by the executant before the Registrar and if as their Lordships of the Privy Council for the persons claiming in the suit based their title through their persons then that admission would be binding upon the said persons and would supply evidence for the execution of the document. "so the question is presenting the document before the Registering Authority and admit execution which is the primary concern and the duty of the Registrar concerned to take the document for the purpose of registration. I have perused Ex. P. 8 in Original and I find there is endorsement that it was presented by siddamma herself in the office of the Sub-Registrar of Somwarpet on 26. 6. 64 at 4. 30 p. m. and her Thumb impression is found there. I have perused Ex. P. 8 in Original and I find there is endorsement that it was presented by siddamma herself in the office of the Sub-Registrar of Somwarpet on 26. 6. 64 at 4. 30 p. m. and her Thumb impression is found there. Below that execution is also admitted by her with the thumb impression available below the first thumb impression. She was identified by two persons and the identification witnesses' signatures are also found there. A sum of Rs. 2,000/- is supposed to have been paid on that day and this payment was made in the presence of two persons. On the face of such admission of execution and her appearing before the sub-Registrar and admitting execution by herself, it is certainly not open to her son and daughter-in-iaw to sue after a period of 17 years that Siddamma never signed the document and proof of execution is necessary. ( 8 ) THE document speaks in itself and the endorsement made before the proper authority which is the public authority can never be questioned. In this view, holding that the judgment and decree of the courts below are prima facie error apparent on the face of the record and perverse the same is set aside and the secand appeal is allowed. The suit is decreed with costs as prayed for. Second Appeal allowed. --- *** --- .