JUDGMENT : 1. The plaintiff instituted a Civil Suit bearing No. 113/2002 before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Baijnath, District Kangra, H.P. In the afore Civil suit, the plaintiff, claimed the hereinafter extracted decree against the defendant:- “Suit for grant of decree of declaration to the effect that the sale deed registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Baijnath at serial No. 58 dated 24.01.2002, in respect of land comprising of khata no.22 min, khatauni No. 45 min, Khasra No.107, measuring 0-27-89 hects upto the extant of 120/2789 shares i.e. 0-01-20 hects situated at Mohal Panjaila uperla, Muza Sansal, Teh Baijnath, District Kangra, H.P. vide missal haquiat istemal 1996-97 executed in favour of the defendant by the plaintiff is null and void and is a result of fraud, misrepresentation and undue influence as the plaintiff being minor cannot execute any sale deed and further the mutation No.158 dated 10.9.2002 of above said sale sanctioned and attested by the A.C. 1st Grade, Baijnath in favour of defendant is also wrong and illegal and is liable to be set aside with the consequential relief of permanent and prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from taking forcible possession for alienating the suit land by way of sale, gift, mortgage etc. and changing its nature in any manner” 2. The learned trial Court through its verdict made thereon on 8.6.2004 decreed the plaintiff's suit. 3. The aggrieved defendant constituted there against a Civil Appeal bearing No. 54-B/04 before the learned First Appellate Court, and, the learned First Appellate Court through its verdict made on 11.08.2009, upon, the afore civil appeal, annulled the verdict of the learned trial court, and, obviously accepted the aggrieved defendant's appeal (supra). 4. The plaintiff being aggrieved, from the afore made verdict of the learned first appellate court, is led to constitute there against the extant appeal before this Court. 5. When the appeal came up for hearing before this Court, it became admitted, on 11.11.2010, on the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether first appellate court erred in appreciating the document Ex.CW1/A and certificate Ex.PW1/A, thereby vitiating impugned judgment and decree? 2. Whether first appellate court below mis-read and mis-appreciated document Ex.D2 without same having been proved in accordance with law thereby vitiating impugned judgment and decree? 3. Whether first appellate court erred in appreciating the document Ex.CW1/A and certificate Ex.PW1/A, thereby vitiating impugned judgment and decree? 2. Whether first appellate court below mis-read and mis-appreciated document Ex.D2 without same having been proved in accordance with law thereby vitiating impugned judgment and decree? 3. Whether first appellate Court below misconceived and misapplied law in AIR 1989 Supreme Court 750 thereby vitiating impugned judgement and decree? Substantial questions of Law No.1 to 3. 6. The plaintiff had challenged through the suit supra, the validity, of, sale deed borne in Ex.P-2. The challenge as became drawn by the plaintiff to Ex.P-2, became embodied in the factum, that at the time of his executing Ex.P-2 with the defendant, his being a minor, and, obviously his becoming beset with a legal bar to execute a valid deed of conveyance with the defendant. 7. At the outset, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, does not contest, the factum of valid signatures of the plaintiff/appellant being borne on Ex.P-2. 8. The acerbic contest which has occurred inter se the contesting litigants, is centered upon, the appreciation of the documentary evidence(s), by the learned first appellate court, wherein, the plaintiff is recorded to be a minor. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff, contends with much force before this Court that findings adversarial to the plaintiff, as, become rendered by the learned First Appellate Court, rather enjoin theirs becoming reversed by this Court. Ex. D-2, is, the copy of an affidavit sworn by Smt. Sundru Devi, the mother of the plaintiff, wherein, she has disclosed that the plaintiff Om Prakash, her son, was at the relevant time, inasmuch, at the time of execution of Ex.P-2 by him, vis-a-vis, the defendant, rather a major, and, also obviously he became capacitated to execute a valid contract of conveyance with the defendant. However, contrary thereto, revelations are borne in Ex.DW 5/A. Moreover, contrary thereto reflections are carried in Ex.D-1, exhibit whereof is a copy of voters list. In addition, contrary to Ex.D-1, exhibit whereof, is an affidavit sworn by the mother of the plaintiff, with disclosures therein qua his being major at the relevant time, and, having the apposite contractual capacity at the relevant time, recitals are also disclosed in Ex. In addition, contrary to Ex.D-1, exhibit whereof, is an affidavit sworn by the mother of the plaintiff, with disclosures therein qua his being major at the relevant time, and, having the apposite contractual capacity at the relevant time, recitals are also disclosed in Ex. PW1/A, and, in Ex.DW5/A. However, no valid reliance can be made upon the afore exhibits, as the source, of information appertaining to the precise date of birth of the plaintiff one Om Prakash, has not been echoed either in the exhibits concerned nor has been echoed by the witnesses concerned, who tendered exhibits (supra) in evidence. In addition, it would be inappropriate to also place any valid reliance, upon the copy of voters list, embodied in Ex. D-1, as, the person who made a trip to the village concerned, whereat the plaintiff was residing has not been ensured to be led into the witness box, by the plaintiff, for proving that his making the afore entries, only on the basis of information purveyed to him by the mother, of the plaintiff, who obviously is the best person rather holding the exact and precise knowledge about the date of birth of the plaintiff, and, obviously also constituted the best evidence, in respect of the controversial issue about the purported incapacity of one Om Prakash, to execute a valid contract of sale, as embodied in Ex.P-2. 9. Consequently, neither Ex. D-1 nor Ex.DW5/A, and, nor Ex.PW1/A, acquire any aura of evidentiary vigour, unless the mother of one Om Parkash was ensured to be led into the witness box, for hers being subjected to both, examination-inchief, and, also to cross-examination, by the counsels concerned, for hence hers ensuring, through her testification, that Ex. D-1, Ex.DW5/A and Ex.PW1/A or Ex. D-2, last exhibit whereof, is the copy of an affidavit sworn by her disclosing therein, the valid contractual capacity of one Om Parkash, all did or did not rather carry all, the truthful disclosures therein, as, respectively appertain to the minority or otherwise of Om Prakash. However, as stated supra, the afore best evidence, has been suppressed, by the plaintiff, though the best evidence (supra) became constituted, in the plaintiff ensuring the stepping into the witness box of his mother. However, as stated supra, the afore best evidence, has been suppressed, by the plaintiff, though the best evidence (supra) became constituted, in the plaintiff ensuring the stepping into the witness box of his mother. The effect of the afore suppression of the afore best evidence, is that no capital can be drawn by the plaintiff, from, Ex.PW1/A, and, from Ex.DW5/A, nor he could make any contention before this court, that the contract of sale embodied in Ex.P-2, is void ab initio, as, in contemporaneity to its drawing by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant, one Om Prakash did not acquire, the legally ordained age for his validily drawing it. 10. Be that as it may, the learned counsel appearing for the defendant, has rested his submission to constrain this Court to decree the plaintiff's suit, and, his afore espousal, is embedded, upon the date of birth certificate of one Om Prakash, certificate whereof, is embodied in Ex.DW5/A. He banks the afore arguments, on the ground, that since it is depended upon, besides relied upon by the defendant, thereupon, per se, he is to be construed to be admitting all the recitals carried therein. However, the afore made submission before this Court stands completely negated, the reason being that Ex.DW5/A, is only a photo copy of the original. Moreover, since, along with Ex.DW5/A the source of information appertaining to the date of birth of one Om Prakash rather stands un-appended, whereas, upon the afore factum becoming appended along with Ex.DW5/A, and, it being detailed therein, that the information contained in Ex.DW5/A hence became purveyed to the authority concerned, by the mother of one Om Prakash, thereupon, alone Ex.DW5/A would acquire the completest aura of evidentiary vigour, otherwise not. Conspicuously, since, the afore information, about the date of birth of one Om Prakash, is not appended along with Ex.DW5/A, nor when it is discernable whether the date of birth of one Om Prakash, as pronounced in Ex.DW5/A became sourced from his mother. Therefore, even though, dependence upon Ex.DW5/A, is made by the defendant, yet it does not hold the apposite probative vigour, unless, upon its adduction into evidence, even by the defendant, the plaintiff had taken to prove it, from the production of original thereof, and, had also ensured that the source of information contained therein, being supplied to the makers thereof only by the mother of one Om Prakash. Since, there is also no demur on the part of the plaintiff to ensure the making of an exhibit mark, upon, the apposite affidavit, sworn by the mother of the plaintiff, also there through Ex.DW5/A acquires no probative vigour. Since as stated supra, the mother of the plaintiff became not ensured to be led into the witness box to either prove or disprove Ex.DW5/A, thereupon, when the afore best evidence became suppressed by the plaintiff. Therefore, this Court is constrained to hold that no reliance can be placed upon the afore exhibits. 11. Dehors the above, in Ex.P-2, exhibit whereof, is a registered deed of conveyance executed inter se the plaintiff, one Om Prakash, and, the defendant, the age of the plaintiff is disclosed to be 24 years. Ex.P-2 contains the valid signatures of the plaintiff, one Om Prakash. Moreover, sealed and signatured endorsements, with respect to all the recitals carried in Ex.P-2, inclusive the age of Om Prakash disclosed therein to be 24 years, do evidently occur thereons. Since, the sealed and signatured statutory recitals as made on Ex.P-2, by the Registering Officer concerned, are evidently made thereons only after contents of Ex.P-2 becoming readover and explained , and, also becoming ensured to be comprehended by Om Prakash. Therefore, Om Prakash becomes estopped to deny the valid execution of Ex.P-2. Moreover, also when his attempt to challenge Ex.P-2, on the ground, of his not holding the valid age of contract, is rested upon exhibits supra, exhibits whereof, for reasons supra, do not hold any vigour rather for suppression of best evidence, inasmuch, as for want of the plaintiff ensuring the stepping into the witness box of his mother, who has, in Ex. D-1, rather disclosed him to be a major at the relevant time. Therefore, since a rebuttable presumption of truth is carried by the statutory endorsements (supra), and, with the afore presumption remaining unrebutted, thereupon, the plaintiff is construable to be acquiescing vis-a-vis the veracity of the afore endorsements. Consequently, the afore statutory endorsements acquire an aura of conclusivity. 12. The above discussion, unfolds, that the conclusions as arrived by the learned first Appellate Court are based, upon a proper and mature appreciation of evidence on record. While rendering the findings, the learned first Appellate Court has not excluded germane and apposite material from consideration. Consequently, the afore statutory endorsements acquire an aura of conclusivity. 12. The above discussion, unfolds, that the conclusions as arrived by the learned first Appellate Court are based, upon a proper and mature appreciation of evidence on record. While rendering the findings, the learned first Appellate Court has not excluded germane and apposite material from consideration. All the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the respondents, and, against the appellant. 13. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the extant appeal, and, it is dismissed. In sequel, the judgment and decree, rendered by the learned first appellate court, is affirmed and maintained. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.