JUDGMENT R.L. Khurana, J.—The present second appeal has been directed by the defendants against the concurrent findings of the two courts below decreeing the suit of the respondents-plaintiffs for possession of the land in dispute (measuring 0-11-53 Hects. comprising of khasra No. 296/1 of Chak Badiara, Tehsil Chirgoan, District Shimla) by way of redemption of mortgage on payment of Rs. 3,000. 2. The plaintiff filed a suit, being Civil Suit No. 150/1 of 1989 before the learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Rohru, claiming the following reliefs: (a) decree for possession of the land in dispute by way of redemption. (b) decree for declaration that sale deed dated 20.1.1989 registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Chirgoan executed by plaintiff No. 2 Bhagat Ram (since died) in favour of defendant No. 2 Smt. Dakhu is null and void being the result of fraud and mis-representation; and (c) decree for permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from alienating/transferring etc. and getting the mutation attested on the basis of the abovesaid sale deed dated 20.1.1969. 3. Briefly stated, the facts as set out in the plaint are these. The plaintiffs are the owners of the land measuring 0-42-18 Hects. comprising of Khasra No. 296 of Chak Badiara, Tehsil Chirgoan, District Shimla in equal shares. A portion of this land, that is, the land in dispute was mortgaged with possession for a consideration of Rs. 3,000 in favour of defendant No. 1 in the month of Jaishtha 2045 (BK) through a writing, which writing is in possession of defendant No. 1. During the last week of February 1989, the plaintiffs offered and tendered the mortgage money to the defendant No. 1 with a request to handover the possession of the land in dispute to them by way of redemption of mortgage. The defendant No. 1 refused to do so on the ground that he share of plaintiff No. 2 in the land comprising of khasra No. 296 stood sold to his wife, that is, defendant No. 2. It was then revealed to the plaintiffs for the first time that the defendants by fraud and misrepresentation got a sale deed qua the share of plaintiff No. 2 (deceased) executed in their favour instead of a deed of mortgage. 4. It was then revealed to the plaintiffs for the first time that the defendants by fraud and misrepresentation got a sale deed qua the share of plaintiff No. 2 (deceased) executed in their favour instead of a deed of mortgage. 4. The plaintiffs have averred that the defendants taking advantage of the illiteracy of plaintiff No. 2, who was also handicapped person of about 20 years of age, sometime in the month of December 1988, took plaintiff No. 2 to Rohru by representing that a mortgage deed was required to be executed and registered to enable them to get the necessary mutation sanctioned qua the mortgage. The defendant No. 1 got some document scribed at Rohru and without reading over and explaining the contents thereof to the deceased plaintiff No. 2 by representing the document to be a mortgage deed obtained thumb mark of plaintiff No. 2 on such document. Again on 20.1.1989 defendant No. 1 took deceased plaintiff No. 2 to the office of Sub Registrar at Chirgoan for the purpose of getting the said document registered. At the time of registration of the document, the contents thereof were neither read over nor explained to the deceased plaintiff No. 2 by the Sub Registrar. He was only asked if the document was thumb marked by him and whether the possession of the land in dispute was with the defendant No. 1. On the deceased plaintiff No. 2 having answered in the affirmative, the Sub Registrar made him to affix his thumb mark on the ^document. Hence the suit claiming the above reliefs. 5. The defendants while resisting the suit denied the mortgage and pleaded that the land subject matter of the sale was given to defendant No. 2 by deceased plaintiff No. 2 with the condition that in case he (the deceased plaintiff No. 2) failed to pay back the sum of Rs. 3,500 which was advanced to him, then he would sell the land in favour of defendant No. 2 for a consideration of Rs. 4,500 by way of a regular sale deed. It was further pleaded that since the deceased plaintiff No. 2 failed to return and repay the amount advanced to him, a sale deed came to be executed by him in favour of defendant No. 2. 4,500 by way of a regular sale deed. It was further pleaded that since the deceased plaintiff No. 2 failed to return and repay the amount advanced to him, a sale deed came to be executed by him in favour of defendant No. 2. The relevant pleadings in this behalf as contained in para 2 of the written statement dated 3.4.1989 read: That para 2 of the plaint is wrong and emphatically repudiated. The land mentioned in para 2 of the plaint was never mortgaged in favour of the defendant No. 1. The land under sale was given to the defendant No. 2 by plaintiff No. 2 with possession with the condition that in case the plaintiff Bhagat Ram (Vendor) fails to pay back the amount Rs. 3,500 advanced to plaintiff Bhagat Ram, then plaintiff Bhagat Ram shall sell the land in favour of defendant No. 2 for consideration of Rs. 4,500 by way of regular sale deed. Since the plaintiff failed to return the amount advanced so plaintiff Bhagat Ram (Vendor) executed the registered sale deed in favour of the defendant No. 2. Rest of the contents of this para is totally denied. 6. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were frameci by the learned trial Court: 1. Whether there exist relationship of mortgagor and mortgagee between the plaintiff and defendant as alleged with respect to khasra No. 296/1 OPP 2. Whether the sale deed No. 8/89 executed on 20.1.89 in favour of defendant No. 2 by the plaintiff No. 2 is the result of fraud misrepresentation and undue advantage as alleged? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPD 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable as alleged in preliminary objection? OPD 4(A). Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of possession by way of redemption of suit land as alleged? OPP 5. Relief. 7. The learned trial Court found issues No. 1 to 3 and 4-A in favour of the plaintiffs and issue No. 4 against the defendants. Consequent upon such findings the suit of the plaintiffs for possession by way of redemption, declaration and injunction was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 31.3.1992. 8. OPP 5. Relief. 7. The learned trial Court found issues No. 1 to 3 and 4-A in favour of the plaintiffs and issue No. 4 against the defendants. Consequent upon such findings the suit of the plaintiffs for possession by way of redemption, declaration and injunction was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 31.3.1992. 8. The appeal preferred by the defendants against the judgment and decree dated 31.3.1992 of the learned trial Court was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge (I), Shimla on 27.9.1994 who agreed with the findings of the learned trial Court on all the issues. Hence the present second appeal at the instance of the defendants, which stands admitted for hearing on the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether in the absence of particulars of alleged fraud and misrepresentation of facts the sale deed exhibit DW-3/A could be held invalid? 2. Whether the courts below were legally justified in inferring that in the absence of examination of scribe and marginal witness the sale deed could be declared null and void? 3. Whether adverse inference was required to oe drawn against the plaintiffs for failure to examine the scribe and the marginal witnesses of the sale deed? 4. Whether the presumption of correctness as attached to the endorsement as appended by the Sub Registrar in the discharge; of his official duties to sale deed Annexure DW-3/A can be held to have been rebutted by the plaintiffs. 5. Whether the courts below have ignored to consider the endorsements as appended by the Sub Registrar to the sale deed exhibit DW-3/A and appellate court acted illegally by rejecting application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC? 6. Whether there has been misreading and misappreciation of oral and documentary evidence by the courts below? 7. Whether the plaintiffs have failed to establish the claim of mortgage and by virtue of sale deed exhibit DW-3/A, he is ceased to have any right title and interest over the properties in suit. 9. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case. My findings on the above questions are as under: Questions No. 2 to 5. 10. All the above questions being inter-linked and inter-connected are being taken up for disposal together. 11. 9. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case. My findings on the above questions are as under: Questions No. 2 to 5. 10. All the above questions being inter-linked and inter-connected are being taken up for disposal together. 11. There is no denying that under Section 60(2) of the Registration Act, 1908, the certificate given by the Registering Officer is admissible in evidence for the purpose of proving that the document has been duly registered in the manner provided by the Act and that the facts mentioned in the endorsements referred to in Section 59 have occurred as therein mentioned. There is, therefore, a presumption which attaches to the correctness of the endorsements made on the document by the Registering Officer. 12. It may be stated that the original sale deed on the basis of which title to the land in dispute is being claimed by the defendants has not been produced and proved in evidence in the present case. Only a photostat copy thereof (Ex. DW I/A) has been placed on the record. DW 3 Shri B.C. Rana has been examined by the defendants to prove the endorsement as to registration of the said sale deed. Even to this witness the original sale deed does not appear to have been shown during his examination. His statement has been recorded on the basis of photostat copy Ex. DW I/A. 13. The defendants under the law were required to prove the sale by primary evidence, that is, by producing and proving the original sale deed or with the permission of the Court by a copy thereof under Section 65, Evidence Act. 14. In the absence of the original sale deed containing the endorsement within the meaning of Section 60, Registration Act or the certified copy thereof, the presumption under Section 60(2), Registration Act cannot be possibly raised in the present case. Merely because the photostat copy of the sale deed has been marked as an exhibit will not dispense with the requirement of the proof of sale or the factum of registration. [See : Salt Tarajee Khimchand and others v. Yelamarti Satyam and others, AIR 1971 SC 1865]. 15. The defendants have also not been able to prove the due execution of the sale deed copy of which is Ex. [See : Salt Tarajee Khimchand and others v. Yelamarti Satyam and others, AIR 1971 SC 1865]. 15. The defendants have also not been able to prove the due execution of the sale deed copy of which is Ex. DW I/A, inasmuch as neither the scribe thereof nor any of the attesting witnesses have been examined. 16. Proof of registration of a document, under the law, can not be said to proof of due execution of the document within the meaning of Section 67, Evidence Act. 17. A Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Ramanna v. Sambamoorthy, AIR 1961 A.P. 361, has held as under:— "The effect of registration is not to prove execution as provided by Section 67 of the Evidence Act but only to prove an admission by the executant to the registration in solemn circumstances. The certificate of the registering officer is admissible not to prove the execution of the deed but merely to prove the admission of execution the effect of such admission being in each case a separate question.” 18. A similar view was taken by a Division Bench of the Assam and Nagaland High Court in Bhutkam Nath v. Kamaleswari, AIR 1972 Assam and Naga 15. It was held:— "It is however, well-settled that when execution of a document is being challenged the certificate of registration alone will not be sufficient proof of the due execution of the document. Registration does not dispense with the necessity of proof of execution when the same is denied. It is true that a sale deed is not required by law to be attested. Even then proof of execution of a sale deed, when it is denied will have to be furnished as in the case of any other document under Section 67 of the Evidence Act/ 19. Following the above ratio, a Division Bench of Bombay High Court in Ramkrishan Ganpat Futane and others v. Mohammad Kasam and others, AIR 1973 Bombay 242, has held:— "In our view a certificate of registration given under Section 60 of the Registration Act is not sufficient to prove due execution of a document and when the execution of a document is denied proof as required by Section 67 of the Evidence Act must be furnished. In the absence of any other evidence on record adduced by the plaintiffs, it is clear that it is not possible to hold merely on the basis of the endorsement of the registering officer that the execution of the wakf deed by deceased Sheikh Mehatab has been proved as required by Section 67 of the Evidence Act/ 20. I am in full agreement with the above ratio and hold that the defendants have not been able to prove due execution of the sale deed in their favour, copy of which is Ex. DW I/A. 21. Probably anticipating the weakness in their case and their difficulties, an application under Order 41, Rule 27, Code of Civil Procedure, was filed by the defendants before the learned first appellate court for producing additional evidence. The defendants, by way of additional evidence, intended to summon and examine the scribe Shri J.K. Dutta, Advocate and the two marginal witnesses of the sale deed, namely, S/Shri Sadh Ram and Bhisheem Singh to prove the execution of the sale deed by deceased plaintiff No. 2. In addition, the defendants also intended to produce copy of mutation, jamabandi and khasra girdawari. In seeking leave to produce additional evidence, the defendants pleaded in paras 2 to 6 of their application as under:— "That from the perusal of the impugned judgment and decree, it will transpire that the learned Sub Judge below has taken the view with the execution of registered deed exhibit DW-l/A has not been proved on record owing to the fact that the appellants have failed to examine the scribe and attesting witnesses of this document and that only registry of this document had been proved. That exhibit DW-l/A was written by Sh. J.K. Datta, Adv. It was executed by the seller Sh. Bhagat Ram in the presence of marginal witnesses Sh. Sadh Ram and Sh. Bisham Singh. That the applicants has cited Sh. J.K. Dutt, Advocate who has dictated the contents of sale deed. But this witnesses was not examined by the learned Court below. That in order to determine the real point of controversy, though registration and execution of sale deed exhibit DW-l/A has been proved on record, yet with a view to remove the objection as raised by the learned Sub Judge below. It will be desirable in the interest of justice if the applicants are allowed to examine Sh. That in order to determine the real point of controversy, though registration and execution of sale deed exhibit DW-l/A has been proved on record, yet with a view to remove the objection as raised by the learned Sub Judge below. It will be desirable in the interest of justice if the applicants are allowed to examine Sh. J.K. Dutta, Advocate, Rohroo, Sh. Sadh Ram and Bisham Singh, who are the scribe and marginal witnesses of the sale deed. No prejudice is going to be caused to the other party if this application is allowed. That apart from the above facts, applicants wants to place on record the copy of mutation No. 13 which was attested on the basis of sale deed exhibit DW-l/A, copy of jamabandi for the year 1984-85 and copy of Khasra Girdawari with respect to land in suit for the period from 7.10.1988 to 5.8.1992. All these documents are per se admissible and no prejudice is going to be caused to the opposite party." 22. It may be noted that the defendants, before the learned trial Court, had cited the scribe Shri J.K. Dutta, Advocate, as their witness. He was, however, not examined by the defendants. No reasons have been disclosed by the defendants as to why such witness was not examined during the course of-trial of the suit before the learned trial Court. It is not that the evidence of the defendants was closed by the learned trial Court without affording them any further opportunity. The defendants closed their evidence on 21.5.1991 of their own volition as per the statement of their counsel. 23. Clause (b) of Rule 27 of Order 41, Code of Civil Procedure, gives a discretion to the appellate Court to allow a party to adduce additional evidence, if the party seeking to adduce additional evidence satisfies the Court that such evidence, notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the impugned decree or order under appeal was passed or made. The application made by the defendants before the learned first appellate court for adducing additional evidence, discloses no reasons as to why the scribe and/or the marginal witnesses of the alleged sale deed could not be summoned and examined in the trial Court or as to why the revenue record, sought to be produced or additional evidence, could not be produced. 24. The defendants are basing their title qua the land in dispute on the sale deed, copy of which is Ex. DW I/A. The names of the scribe and marginal witnesses appear on the deed itself and were known to the defendants. In fact as stated above, the scribe though cited as a witness and summoned by the defendants in the trial Court, for the reasons best known to them, was never examined by them. The revenue record sought to be produced is not relevant and material either to prove due execution of the sale deed or to prove the title of the defendants. 25. In the absence of reasons as to why the evidence, sought to be produced by way of additional evidence, could not be produced before the trial Court, the application made by the defendants was rightly rejected by the learned first appellate Court. 26. A contention was raised on behalf of the defendants that even if the application did not fulfil the requirements of Clause (b) of Rule 27 of Order 41, Code of Civil Procedure, the leaned first appellate Court should have exercised the discretion under clause (c) of the said rule since such additional evidence was material for the just determination of the case. 27. Under Clause (c) of Rule 27 of Order 41, Code of Civil Procedure, an appellate Court can permit a party to produce additional evidence to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause. 28. The contention raised on behalf of the defendants has no merit. Firstly, no such contention appears to have been raised by the defendants before the learned first appellate court. Secondly, even in the grounds of appeal before this court no such contention has been raised. 28. The contention raised on behalf of the defendants has no merit. Firstly, no such contention appears to have been raised by the defendants before the learned first appellate court. Secondly, even in the grounds of appeal before this court no such contention has been raised. Thirdly, though the order of the lower appellate Court admitting/rejecting additional evidence can be questioned in an appeal from the appellate decree, the High Court ordinarily would not interfere with the discretion of the lower appellate Court in admitting or refusing to admit additional evidence unless such court has not exercised its discretion in a judicial manner or in accordance with law. 29. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the presumption under Section 60(2), Evidence Act is not available to the defendants. The execution of the sale deed has not been proved. In the absence of the original sale deed and the proof of its due execution the two courts below have rightly held the sale to be not valid. Question No. 1. 30. This question does not arise in the present case since all the particulars of fraud and misrepresentation have been detailed in the plaint. Question No. 7. 31. It is the admitted case of the defendants that they were placed in possession of the land in dispute in lieu of Rs. 3,500 advanced by them to the deceased plaintiff No. 2 with the understanding that in case the plaintiff failed to repay the amount, a sale deed would be executed in their favour. Such admission on the part of defendants establishes the mortgage. There is also evidence on record that some agreement was arrived at between the parties in the year 1987. Such agreement, however, has not seen the light of the day. Question No. 6. 32. I have been taken through the evidence coming on record. There has been no misreading of evidence. As held above the defendants have not been able to prove the sale in their favour. 33. As a result of the above discussion and findings, the present appeal fails and the same is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Appeal dismissed.