“18. Here, in the present case, it was for the plaintiffs to prove that the sale deeds Ex P1 and Ex P2 were bona fide and genuine but as observed above, they failed to do so as neither any witness of the alleged power of attorney has been examined nor any marginal witness of the alleged sale deeds has been examined and even no evidence has been led by the plaintiffs to prove that Zora Singh was alive on the day of execution of said power of attorney. Thus, only when the plaintiffs could have proved so, then the defendant No I was to dislodge the same proving that it were sham, bogus and fictitious. During the course of arguments the Ld. Counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2 relied upon case law Sulakhan Singh s. Smt. Pal Kaur, 2011 (2) CCC 495 (P & H) and H.Lakshmaiah Reddy & others Vs. L. Venkateshi Reddy, 2015 (3) CCC 278 (S.C.) . However, these judgments are not helpful to the respondents No.1 and 1 in any manner. There is no doubt with regard to settled law that presumption of truth lies in favour of registered document and that the mutation entries do not convey or extinguish any title and those entries are relevant only for the purpose of collection of land revenue but in this case the circumstances are totally different as it was the specific case of the appellants that on the day when the alleged power of attorney was executed Zora Singh was not alive and, no evidence whatso ever has been brought on record by the respondents No.1 and 2 that he was alive on that day. On the other hand, as observed above, the defendants have brought on record sufficient evidence and proved the fact that on the day when the alleged power of attorney was executed Zora Singh was not alive and that the alleged power of attorney is result of some fraud/cheating. Further, the plaintiffs has sought from the trial Court to decide their right, title on the suit land by way of
