JUDGMENT : (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 1. This second appeal has been filed by the defendants of the suit against the judgment and decree dated 22 nd July 2019 (decree signed on 27.07.2019) passed in Civil Appeal No. 151 of 2018 by the learned District Judge-XIV, Dhanbad whereby the learned first appellate Court has reversed the judgment and decree dated 29 th June 2018 (decree signed on 12.07.2018) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dhanbad in Title Suit No. 114 of 2003. 2. Title Suit No. 114 of 2003 was filed by Munilal Karmakar, son of Late Uday Karmakar and Baneshwar Karmakar, son of Shri Munilal Karmakar against the defendants namely, Ram Khelawan Mallah, Krishna Mallah and Vijay Mallah, sons of late Manik Mallah. The suit was for declaration that the plaintiffs were the occupancy raiyat having title and interest over Schedule-A land and in the alternative, if the plaintiffs found dispossessed during pendency of the suit, for recovery of Khas possession thereof. A prayer was also made seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their heirs etc. in connection with the suit property. 3. The suit was dismissed by the learned trial court and the appeal was allowed by the learned first appellate court. The defendants are the appellants before this Court. 4. This appeal was admitted vide order dated 26.07.2023 on the following substantial question of law: "Whether the learned first appellate court committed perversity by considering that the recitals made in the registered settlement deed marked Ext.2 are a conclusive proof of the title of the vendor of the plaintiff?" Arguments of the Appellants 5. The learned counsel has submitted that the appellants are the descendants of the recorded tenant whose name has been duly recorded in the record-of-rights. He has also submitted that the entries in the record-of-rights have become final and there is nothing on record to show that such entry was ever challenged. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants has also submitted that there were two proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and in both the proceedings, the plaintiffs had lost. The matter attained finality in the proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure only and the matter was contested till the stage of revision. 7. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants has also submitted that there were two proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and in both the proceedings, the plaintiffs had lost. The matter attained finality in the proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure only and the matter was contested till the stage of revision. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the suit was dismissed on the ground that the plaintiffs failed to prove the basis of their title. The basis of the title of the plaintiffs was the decree in rent suit, but they had neither mentioned the details of the rent suit or the date of judgment of the rent suit, nor produced the judgement and decree of the rent suit. The recitals of the registered settlement deed mentioned the Execution Case No. 664 of 1934-35 dated 15.02.1935 and date of confirmation of sale dated 18.03.1935 and also mentioned that the decree holder obtained possession on 14.09.1936, but no documents were produced on record to substantiate the said details and in absence of such documents, the learned trial Court refused to accept the contention of the plaintiffs. The learned counsel submitted that the judgment of the learned trial Court has been reversed by the learned appellate Court primarily by referring to the contents of the registered settlement no. 544 dated 23.02.1939. 8. The learned counsel further submitted that the learned First Appellate Court has erred in law in reversing the decree by referring to recital of the deed. He has also submitted that merely because the deed is registered, the same does not mean that every recital mentioned therein is also correct. He submitted that the factum about auction, execution and possession was also required to be duly proved. He submitted that it was the specific case of the defendants before the learned trial court that the vendor of the said settlement deed i.e. the ex-landlord never came in possession of the property and therefore, the records-of-rights revealed that the name of the ancestors of the defendants finds place therein. Arguments of the Respondents 9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, while opposing the prayer has submitted that the learned First Appellate Court has rightly referred to the recitals made in the registered settlement deed. Arguments of the Respondents 9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, while opposing the prayer has submitted that the learned First Appellate Court has rightly referred to the recitals made in the registered settlement deed. He has in particular referred to Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act to submit that not only the execution of the deed, but also the contents thereof are presumed to be correct. He has further referred to Section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act to submit that when the term of a contract, or of a grant, or of any other disposition of property, have been reduced to the form of a document, and in all cases in which any matter is required by law to be reduced in the form of a document, no evidence shall be given in proof of the terms of such contract, grant or disposition of property or of such matter, except the document itself, or secondary evidence of its contents in cases in which secondary evidence is admissible under the provisions contained prior to that section. 10. The learned counsel submitted that the recital of the registered settlement deed has been rightly taken care of by the learned First Appellate Court to reverse the decree. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 3681-3682 of 2020 (Rattan Singh and others Vs. Nirmal Gill and others) decided on 16 th November 2020. He has referred to paragraph 32 of the said judgment to submit that it is settled legal principle that a document is presumed to be genuine if it is registered and further in the said case, a reference has been made to the earlier judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Prem Singh and others Vs. Birbal and others" reported in (2006) 5 SCC 353 . The learned counsel has submitted that the initial onus was on the defendants who had challenged the registered document. 12. The learned counsel has also submitted that there is another aspect of the matter, inasmuch as, the defendants had never challenged the settlement deed pursuant to which the plaintiffs were claiming right, title and possession. The learned counsel has submitted that the initial onus was on the defendants who had challenged the registered document. 12. The learned counsel has also submitted that there is another aspect of the matter, inasmuch as, the defendants had never challenged the settlement deed pursuant to which the plaintiffs were claiming right, title and possession. The learned counsel for the respondents has made this submission although admittedly, no question of law as such has been framed in connection with this point. Rejoinder argument of the Appellants 13. In response, the learned counsel for the appellants has also referred to section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act and has submitted that not every matter mentioned in a document which is about 30 years old is to be taken to be a gospel truth, but the Court may presume that the signature and every other part of such document which purports to be in the handwriting of any particular person is in that person's handwriting and in the case of a document executed or attested, that it was duly executed and attested by the persons by whom it purports to be executed and attested. The learned counsel submits that essentially the presumption is in relation to the execution of the very document, but there is no presumption that every recital mentioned therein is correct. He submits that the recitals of the registered document were required to be proved by the plaintiffs which the plaintiffs admittedly did not prove and the learned First Appellate Court has taken the recital of the registered deed as gospel truth and has reversed the decree. He has submitted that the substantial question of law be answered in favour of the appellants. Findings of this Court 14. Case of the plaintiffs. (a) It was the case of the plaintiffs that the land in C.S. Khata No.42 of Mouza Dumri, P.O. Jorapokhar including suit land was in the name of one Bhagirath Mallah who paid rent to the landlord Raja Shiva Prasad Singh. The rent fell in arrears and the landlord filed rent suit, obtained a decree which was followed by Execution Case No. 664 of 1934-35. The said holding was auction sold and purchased by decree holder of the suit on 15.02.1935; sale was confirmed on 18.03.1935; the landlord obtained delivery of possession of land measuring 2.91 acres on 14.09.1936 and remained in Khas possession of the same. The said holding was auction sold and purchased by decree holder of the suit on 15.02.1935; sale was confirmed on 18.03.1935; the landlord obtained delivery of possession of land measuring 2.91 acres on 14.09.1936 and remained in Khas possession of the same. (b) It was further case of the plaintiffs that while in possession the landlord granted settlement of 66 decimals of land (4 decimal of land in Plot No. 1994 and 62 decimals of land in Plot No. 1995) by registered patta no. 544 dated 23.02.1939 to Uday Karmakar and Uday Karmakar paid salami and also rent. The property was delivered to Uday Karmakar and thereafter, he remained in possession of the same and cultivated the land. It was their further case that after vesting of Jharia Raj Estate in 1951 to State of Bihar and after the death of Uday Karmakar, the plaintiffs were in peaceful possession thereof and they also made certain constructions on the suit property. It was their case that while in possession of Schedule A land, plaintiffs sold 20 decimal of land in Plot No. 1995 to TISCO vide registered sale- deed in the year 1974 who built a pucca road on the transferred land and the rest of the land continued to be in possession of the plaintiffs. (c) The further case of the plaintiffs was that Bhagirath Mallah had no concern with the suit land after the auction sale and delivery of khas possession to the landlord on 14.09.1936 and consequently, the defendants had no right, title and interest over schedule A land. (d) It was their further case that Manik Mallah falsely claimed to be son of Bhagirath Mallah and a proceeding under section 144 of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.) was instituted in collusion with local police in connection with 1.40 acres of land under Khata No. 42 being Plot No. 1993, 1994 and 1995 which was numbered as M.P. Case No. 1091 of 1982 and was converted into a proceeding under section 145 of Cr.P.C. However, vide order dated 30.12.1989 the learned Magistrate declared the possession of Manik Mallah. Against the same, a revision was preferred being Cr. Revision No. 70 of 1990 which was dismissed on 05.01.1993. Against the same, a revision was preferred being Cr. Revision No. 70 of 1990 which was dismissed on 05.01.1993. (e) It was further case of the plaintiffs that in the meantime in R.S. Khata in the year 1984 the schedule A lands were recorded in the name of plaintiff no.1 and the defendants claimed the land on the basis of C.S. Record-of-rights. However, the plaintiffs claimed that in view of the auction sale followed by settlement to the ancestor of the plaintiffs by ex-landlord and thereafter continuous payment of rent by plaintiffs, the defendants had no right. It was their further case that the defendants had wrongly manipulated the record-of-rights. The plaintiffs also took a stand that another proceeding under section 144 of Cr.P.C. was initiated bearing M.P. Case No. 1779 of 2001 which was again converted into a proceeding under section 145 of Cr.P.C. against which the defendants filed Criminal Revision No. 26 of 2002 and vide order dated 17.01.2003 the learned Court had observed that the plaintiffs should take recourse to competent civil Court and thereafter, the suit was filed. 15. Case of the defendants. I. So far as the defendants are concerned, it was an admitted fact that the land was recorded in the name of Bhagirath Mallah but they asserted that Bhagirath Mallah never defaulted in payment of rent; there was no decree in any rent suit filed by the landlord and the holding was never auction sold in the Execution Case No. 664 of 1934-35; the auction was never confirmed on 18.03.1935 and the landlord never obtained any delivery of possession of the holding. II. It was the specific case of the defendants that the landlord was never in possession of the land and never gave settlement to Uday Karmakar vide deed no. 544 dated 23.02.1939. It was alleged that the deed was forged and fabricated and it did not bear the signature or LTI of the landlord and there were no witnesses. It was also alleged that the deed was signed and executed by someone else. III. It was asserted that the defendants were not aware that the plaintiffs had sold 20 decimals of land to TISCO and that the Pucca road was never built by TISCO but it was road belonging to the government. IV. The possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land was also denied. III. It was asserted that the defendants were not aware that the plaintiffs had sold 20 decimals of land to TISCO and that the Pucca road was never built by TISCO but it was road belonging to the government. IV. The possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land was also denied. The case of the defendants was that the Bhagirath Mallah was the recorded tenant in connection with Khata No. 42 who died 70 years back leaving behind his widow and only son Manik Mallah- the father of the defendants who stepped into the shoes of Bhagirath Mallah. In the year 1982, the plaintiff no. 1 wanted to encroach 66 decimals of land in Plot No. 1994 and 1995 and consequently, M.P. Case No. 1091 of 1982 was instituted which was converted into a proceeding under section 145 of Cr.P.C. and was transferred to the Court of Magistrate for disposal. Vide order dated 30.12.1989 the learned Magistrate declared the possession of Manik Mallah. Against the same, the plaintiffs preferred revision numbered as Cr. Revision No. 70 of 1990 which was dismissed on 05.01.1993. They asserted that the plaintiffs were never in possession of the property. V. It was further asserted on behalf of the defendants that Bhagirath Mallah was the recorded owner. His name appeared in the khatiyan since 1922-23. He was paying rent to the State Government. One measurement case was also filed and ultimately, in revisional survey which started in the year 1983- 84 the land was recorded in the name of defendants after verification and defendants were paying rent to the State of Bihar. The draft record-of-rights was also prepared in the name of the defendants. It was their further case that the plaintiff no. 1 never filed any case under section 87 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act before the Settlement Court against the preparation of record-of-rights. It was asserted that the first criminal revision i.e. Cr. Revision No. 70 of 1990 which was filed by the plaintiff no. 1 was dismissed and the 2 nd criminal revision filed by the defendants i.e. Cr. Revision No. 26 of 2002 was allowed. 16. During the pendency of the suit, plaintiff no. 1 died and was represented by his legal heirs. 17. Both the parties led oral and documentary evidences before the learned trial Court. 1 was dismissed and the 2 nd criminal revision filed by the defendants i.e. Cr. Revision No. 26 of 2002 was allowed. 16. During the pendency of the suit, plaintiff no. 1 died and was represented by his legal heirs. 17. Both the parties led oral and documentary evidences before the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court framed following issues for consideration: "i) Is there any cause of action for the present suit? ii) Is the present suit maintainable in the present form? iii) Is the present suit barred by Principle of waiver, estoppel, acquiescence? iv) Has the plaintiff and right, title, interest over the suit land? v) To what relief or reliefs the plaintiff entitled to?" 18. After considering the materials on record, the learned trial Court recorded that the specific case of the plaintiffs was that the recorded tenant Bhagirath Mallah failed to pay arrears of rent which was followed by rent suit. The rent suit was decreed and the landlord filed execution case in which the property was auction sold and purchased by the decree holder of the suit on 15.02.1935 and the sale was confirmed on 18.03.1935 and that Raja Shiva Prasad Singh was in possession who executed registered patta dated 23.02.1939 in favour of Uday Karmakar. Thereafter, the plaintiffs continued to pay rent to Zamindar after vesting of the estate. 19. The learned trial Court recorded that the entire basis of the title of the plaintiffs is the rent suit. However, the plaintiffs had not mentioned the rent suit or the date of the judgment and no documents were produced in support of execution case, order passed in the execution case, confirmation of sale, the decree holder obtaining possession on 14.09.1936 and no such documents were available on record. On the aforesaid ground, the learned trial Court recorded that in absence of such documents, the contention of the plaintiffs could not be accepted. Even the rent receipts filed by the plaintiffs were illegible. The plaintiffs had not filed Zamindari receipt of the scheduled land. The learned trial Court recorded that on the other hand, the defendants had filed Malguzari receipts which showed that they were paying the rent of the scheduled property. 20. The learned trial Court ultimately held that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that from where their vendors i.e., vendor of deed no. The learned trial Court recorded that on the other hand, the defendants had filed Malguzari receipts which showed that they were paying the rent of the scheduled property. 20. The learned trial Court ultimately held that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that from where their vendors i.e., vendor of deed no. 544 dated 23.02.1939 executed by Raja Shiva Prasad Singh derived his title. The learned Court recorded that the burden of proof was on the plaintiffs to prove their title on the disputed land and ultimately, dismissed the suit. The findings of the learned trial Court are as under:- "22. Issues No. (ii) and (iv): Since these are the main issues therefore the same are taken up for consideration first. The case of the plaintiff is that as the recorded tenant Bhagirath Mallah failed to pay arrears of rent therefore the landlord filed a rent suit and obtained a decree. That the landlord also filed an Execution case no. 664 of 1934-1935, in the said execution case the entire holding was auctioned sols and purchased by the then Decree Holder on 15.02.1935 and the said auction was confirmed on 18.03.1985. that the Raja was in the possession of the land and executed Regd. Patta no. 544 dated 28.02.1939, granted settlement of 0.66 dec. land in plot no 1994-0.4 dec. and 0.62 dec. in plot no. 1995 total area 66 dec. in favour of Uday Karmakar the father and grand father of plaintiffs and they continued in possession by paying the rent to the Zamindar and after vesting to the state. The basis of the title of the plaintiff is the Rent suit. However, they have not mentioned the rent suit or the date of judgment. The execution case no. 664/1934-35 dated 15.02.1935 and date of confirmation-18.03.35 and the Decree Holder obtained possession on 14.09.1936 but no the said documents are not available with the record. In the absence of such documents the contention of the plaintiff cannot be accepted. The rent receipts filed by the plaintiffs are illegible. The plaintiffs have also not filed the Zamindari receipts of the scheduled land. The defendants have filed the Malguzari receipts which show that the plaintiffs were paying the rent of the scheduled property. The plaintiff has stated that their predecessors got the property from deed of settlement no. 544 dtd. The rent receipts filed by the plaintiffs are illegible. The plaintiffs have also not filed the Zamindari receipts of the scheduled land. The defendants have filed the Malguzari receipts which show that the plaintiffs were paying the rent of the scheduled property. The plaintiff has stated that their predecessors got the property from deed of settlement no. 544 dtd. 28.02.1939 executed by Raja Shiv Prasad Singh by filing a rent suit against the recorded raiyat. No, documents regarding that id filed by the plaintiff. The plaintiffs have failed to prove that from where there vendors had derived the title. The burden on proof is on the plaintiff to prove its title on the disputed land. Therefore, issue no. (i) and (iv) are decided against the plaintiff. " 21. So far as the learned First Appellate Court is concerned, the learned First Appellate Court formulated only one point for consideration i.e., whether the plaintiffs had right, title, interest and possession over the suit property. 22. The learned appellate Court considered the oral and documentary evidences and recorded that exhibit- 1 series were the rent receipts in the name of Uday Karmakar and exhibit- 2 was the certified copy of the registered patta no. 544 dated 23.02.1939. The appellate Court found that the ex-landlord had executed registered settlement deed in favour of Uday Karmakar and in the deed itself, it was written that vide Execution Case No. 664 of 1934-35 the landlord had purchased the property in auction sale and after that he had settled the same through the aforesaid registered deed in favour of Uday Karmakar. The learned appellate Court also referred to exhibit- 3 which was the certified copy of the registered sale-deed dated 29.01.1974 by which Uday Karmakar had sold 0.20 acres of land to TISCO. The learned appellate Court also referred to the judgment passed in Cr. Revision No. 26 of 2002 arising out of M.P. Case No. 1779 of 2001 (Ram Khelawan Mallah and others Vs. Baneshwar Karmakar and others) and it was recorded that the revision was filed against the order dated 02.02.2002 passed in M.P. Case No. 1779 of 2001 whereby the proceeding was converted into proceeding under section 145 of Cr.P.C. from a proceeding under section 144 of Cr.P.C. and the revision was allowed. Baneshwar Karmakar and others) and it was recorded that the revision was filed against the order dated 02.02.2002 passed in M.P. Case No. 1779 of 2001 whereby the proceeding was converted into proceeding under section 145 of Cr.P.C. from a proceeding under section 144 of Cr.P.C. and the revision was allowed. The learned appellate Court further recorded that Exhibit – 5 and 8 were the documents related to measurement of the land By Survey Knowing Pleader Commissioner. 23. The learned appellate Court further referred to the documents of the defence including the rent receipts as contained in Exhibit- A series, death certificate of Manik Mallah dated 21.03.1990 (Exhibit- B) which showed that Manik Mallah was son of Bhagirath Mallah and Exhibit- C which was the certified copy of the documents relating to proceeding under sections 144 and 145 of Cr.P.C. of the year 1982 wherein Manik Mallah was found in possession of the property against which revision was also dismissed. 24. The learned appellate Court ultimately recorded the following findings: "13…It is specific case of the plaintiff/appellant that vide registered settlement deed no. 533 dated 23-02-1939 0.4 acres under plot no.1194 in 0.62 acres under plot no. 1995 total area 0.66 acres under Khata no. 42 of village Dumari was settled to Udai Karmakar by the ex-landlord. The defendant have not filed any counter claim to set aside the sale deed executed by Udai Karmakar in favour of TISCO for land of plot no. 1993 and this is not subject matter of the suit. It came on record that Udai Karmakar was found in possession of 0.46 acres of land and he was paying rent to the State. Later on, his rent was not being taken by the Revenue Authority. The legal heirs of Udai Karmakar have filed Title Suit no. 114/03 for declaration of their raiyati right, title and interest over 0.66 acres in plot no. 1994 and plot no. 1995 (corresponding to R.S. Plot no. 1809). They have admitted that out of 0.66 acres of land, they have sold 0.20 acres to TISCO. There is specific case is that the recorded tenant Bhagirath Mallah failed in arrear of land. Then the then Ex- landlord has filed rent suit and obtained the decree then he has filed Execution Case no. 664/1934-35 and on 14-09-1936 he was given possession of 2.91 acres of land of Khata no. There is specific case is that the recorded tenant Bhagirath Mallah failed in arrear of land. Then the then Ex- landlord has filed rent suit and obtained the decree then he has filed Execution Case no. 664/1934-35 and on 14-09-1936 he was given possession of 2.91 acres of land of Khata no. 42 of village Dumari by Collectoriate, Dhanbad. These facts are mentioned in registered settlement deed no. 544 dated 23-03-1939 (Exhibit 2) executed by ex-landlord in favour of Udai Karmakar. The learned lower court has disbelieved this fact and dismissed the suit. On the basis of above discussion, I find that the plaintiff/appellants have their right, title interest over 0.46 acres of land of C.S. Plot no. 1994 and 1995 under C.S. Khata no. 42 of village Dumari P.S. Jorapokhar, District Dhanbad. Hence, I find and hold that the Judgment and decree dated 29-06-18/12- 07-18 passed by the learned lower court in Title Suit no. 114/03 are not as per facts of the case. So, the same are set aside. Point no. 1 for determination is accordingly decided…" 25. From the perusal of the judgment passed by the learned first appellate Court, it is apparent that the learned first appellate Court heavily relied upon the recitals of the certified copy of the registered settlement deed no. 544 dated 23.02.1939 (Exhibit 2- marked with objection) which referred to the background that the land came in possession of the then landlord by virtue of the rent suit filed against Bhagirath Mallah (ancestor of the defendants) who fell in arrears of rent which was followed by execution case and further followed by auction and delivery of possession to the landlord and then the landlord issued the registered settlement deed no. 544 dated 23.02.1939. However, none of the documents relating to the aforesaid recitals in the settlement deed relating to default in payment of rent, rent suit, execution case, auction and delivery of possession pursuant to auction to the ancestors of the plaintiffs were brought on record by the plaintiffs to prove the facts mentioned in the recitals of the registered settlement deed no. 544 dated 23.02.1939. 544 dated 23.02.1939. The learned trial Court had dismissed the suit on account of non-filing of any such documents which were referred to in the recitals of the registered settlement deed of the year 1939 and the learned appellate Court allowed the appeal by referring to the recitals of the deed of 1939 to believe as to how the property came back to the landlord from the recorded tenant and was settled to the plaintiffs by the landlord namely, Raja Shiv Prasad Singh vide the registered settlement deed of the year 1939. 26. Consequently, the aforesaid substantial question of law was framed by this court i.e., whether the recitals made in registered settlement deed marked as Exhibit- 2 are the conclusive proof of the title of the vendor of the plaintiffs? 27. It is an admitted fact that none of the facts which has been mentioned in the recital of the settlement deed of the year 1939 (Exhibit-2) was proved by the plaintiffs by filing any document relating to the rent suit, the decree in the rent suit, the order passed in the execution case, the auction sale as also the document relating to delivery of possession etc. 28. It is the specific case of the appellants before this Court that ex- landlord never came in possession of the property and therefore, the record-of-rights continued to record the name of the ancestors of the defendants who were claiming the property through the recorded tenant namely, Bhagirath Mallah. 29. In order to place reliance on the recitals of the registered deed no. 544 dated 23.02.1939 (exhibit-2) which is a document more than 30 years old, the respondents have referred to section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act to submit that not only the execution of the deed, but also the contents thereof are to be presumed to be correct and therefore, there was no need for adducing any further evidence in connection with recitals in the registered deed dated 23.02.1939 (Exhibit-2). A reference has also been made to section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act to submit that when the term of a contract, or of a grant, or of any other disposition of property, is reduced to the form of a document, and in all cases in which any matter is required by law to be reduced to the form of a document, no evidence shall be given in proof of the terms of such contract, grant or disposition of property or of such matter, except the document itself, or secondary evidence of its contents in which secondary evidence is admissible. Although the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the defendants never challenged the registered deed dated 23.02.1939, but at the same time admitted that no question of law in connection with this aspect of the matter has been framed while admitting this second appeal. Consequently, there was no occasion for this Court to take this point regarding challenge or no challenge to the registered deed dated 23.02.1939 (exhibit-2) any further, as per law the decision in second appeal is to be confined only to the substantial question of law as framed by the Court. 30. On the other hand, it is the specific argument of the appellants that not every matter mentioned in a document which is 30 years old, is to be taken to be a gospel truth but the Court may presume that the signature or other part of the document which purports to be in handwriting of a person is in that person's handwriting and in case of a document executed or attested that it was duly executed and attested by the person by whom it purported to be executed and attested. 31. This Court has gone through the provisions of section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act and is of the view that the learned counsel for the appellants has given right interpretation to the said section. On bare perusal of the said section, it is apparent that not everything mentioned in a registered document is to be taken to be a gospel truth and the presumption is essentially in relation to the execution of the document or its attestation or handwritten portions having been written by the concerned person when the document is more than 30 years old. This court is of the considered view that recitals in the the registered settlement deed no. 544 dated 23.02.1939 could not have been taken as a gospel truth and hence conclusive evidence of the matters mentioned therein and in case of production of cogent evidence in the present case that the property continued to be recorded in the name of the recorded tenants who were the ancestors of the defendants, it was certainly for the plaintiffs to prove the facts mentioned in the recitals of the registered settlement deed no. 544 dated 23.02.1939 to prove that the recorded tenants were ousted from the property on account of a rent suit, followed by auction in execution case and delivery of possession to the then landlord on account of default in payment of rent by the recorded tenant and then the ancestors of the plaintiffs were settled the property by the ex-landlord. 32. Thus, it was for the plaintiffs to prove their case of default of Bhagirath Mallah, the rent receipt, the execution case, auction sale and recovery of possession by the ex-landlord in order to prove that the ex-landlord was having the title to transfer the land in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs through registered settlement deed of the year 1939. These aspects of the matter having not been proved, the learned trial Court had rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. 33. However, the learned First Appellate Court on the very same recital allowed the appeal by holding that the vendor of the plaintiffs had title over the same. The title of the vendor of the plaintiffs was directly in issue before the Court and the recitals of the deed which were mentioned in the plaint were categorically denied by the defendants and therefore, it was incumbent upon the plaintiffs to prove the facts through evidence which were narrated in the recital of the registered settlement deed of 1939. 34. In the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prem Singh (supra) , it has been held in paragraph 27 that there is a presumption that a registered document is validly executed. Paragraph 27 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted as under: - “27. There is a presumption that a registered document is validly executed. A registered document, therefore, prima facie would be valid in law. Paragraph 27 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted as under: - “27. There is a presumption that a registered document is validly executed. A registered document, therefore, prima facie would be valid in law. The onus of proof, thus, would be on a person who leads evidence to rebut the presumption. In the present case, Respondent 1 has not been able to rebut the said presumption.” 35. In the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rattan Singh (supra) , the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to the judgment passed in the case of Prem Singh (supra) and noted that in the said case the record revealed that the disputed documents were registered. In the present case, the certified copy of the registered settlement deed no. 544 dated 23.02.1939 was marked exhibit-2 though with objection. However, in view of the aforesaid proposition of law as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prem Singh (supra) and also followed in the case of Rattan Singh (Supra) there can be no doubt that the registered settlement deed no. 544 dated 23.02.1939 was duly executed. 36. Further, in the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Madras High Court reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Mad. 5153 [ Marathal (died) and Anr. vs. Kanniammal (Died) and Others] , the extent of presumption with respect to a registered document has been considered. In paragraph 69 of the said judgment, it has been held that the presumption under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act is not wide enough and the court can draw presumption from the document only with respect to signature, execution or attestation of the document. The presumption does not extend to the correctness of the statement found in the document nor that the contents of the documents are true. It has also been held that such statements regarding past events and the contents would have to be proved like any other fact. Paragraph 69 of the aforesaid judgment passed by the Hon’ble Madras High Court is quoted as under: - “ 69. To what extent can such a presumption be raised? The presumption under Section 90 is not a wide one. The presumption that the Court can draw from the document is only with respect to signature, execution or attestation of the document. To what extent can such a presumption be raised? The presumption under Section 90 is not a wide one. The presumption that the Court can draw from the document is only with respect to signature, execution or attestation of the document. The presumption does not extend to the correctness of the statement found in such documents nor that the contents of the documents are true. Such statement regarding past events and the contents would have to be proved like any other facts. See, Mohmedbhal Rasulbhai Malek v. Amirbhai Rahimbhai Malek, 2000 SCC OnLine Guj 200.” 37. This Court is of the considered view that once a fact was recited in the plaint and disputed by the defendants with regard to its very existence particularly when it related to documents mentioned in the recitals of the registered settlement deed no. 544 dated 23.02.1939, it was for the plaintiffs to produce the documents to substantiate the recitals made in the the registered settlement deed no. 544 dated 23.02.1939 but the plaintiffs having not undertaken such an exercise cannot claim that they acquired title from the vendor when they could not prove the title of their vendor coupled with the fact that the record of rights still continues in the name of the ancestor of the defendants namely Bhagirath Mallah. This Court is of the view that the sole substantial question of law as framed in this case is fit to be answered in favour of the appellants and against the respondents. This Court is of the view that the learned First Appellate Court committed grave error by considering that the recitals made in the registered settlement deed marked as Exhibit- 2 were conclusive proof of the title of the vendor of the plaintiffs. 38. Accordingly, the judgment and decree dated 22 nd July 2019 (decree signed on 27.07.2019) passed in Civil Appeal No. 151 of 2018 by the learned District Judge-XIV, Dhanbad is set aside and the judgment and decree dated 29 th June 2018 (decree signed on 12.07.2018) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dhanbad in Title Suit No. 114 of 2003 is upheld. 39. This second appeal is accordingly allowed. 40. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed. 41. Let the records received from the learned Court concerned be sent back forthwith.