seal it bears, and to have been duly executed and attested, if it purports so
10 be,

Revision

April I, 1933. Owen C.J.: In this case the plaintiff produced
a document purporting to be a deed of gift of, amongst other things.
a house in Berber Town; she pleaded that it was a valid deed and
that she was entitled to its registration. The defendants, the other
heirs of the deceased registered proprietor, disputed the validity of
the deed, and issue was joined upon those pleas. As expressed by
the learned district judge that issue was "Is Exhibit A, the document
in question, a valid deed of gift from Mansour Ehmaida to the plain-
tiff of Plot 2S Block XII Berber Town?"

The plaintiff is the donor's widow. SI:e lived with him in this
house until twelve or fourteen years ago, when he died, and she has
continued to live in the house until today. The document whose
validity is in question is dated 1317 A.H. It is over thirty years old,
and it is not surprising that the plaintiff is unable to produce any of
those who witnessed or were present at its execution.

It is a good rule of evidence that where an old document is
produced from a proper custody it will be presumed to have been
signed or sealed by the person whose seal or signature it bears, and
to have been duly executed and attested if it purports so to be.

The proper custodian of this document was the plaintiff who pro-
duced it. The onus of rebuttal of the presumption in favour of its
validity was cast upon the defendants. In my opinion the district
judge wrongly cast the onus of proof upon the plaintiff. There is
nothing in the evidence to show that the defendants could prove that
this document was not a valid one, and judgement should have been
given in the plaintiffs favour.

Application allowed