As per case facts, the original owner allegedly executed a Power of Attorney (PoA) in a foreign country, enabling plaintiff No.2 to sell land to himself and then to his ... wife (plaintiff No.1) for loan repayment. The defendants, claiming long-term possession, contested the plaintiffs' title. The trial court and first appellate court dismissed the suit due to the non-production of the PoA and non-compliance with the Registration Act. However, the High Court, presuming the PoA's validity from an endorsement, decreed the suit. The question arose whether a statutory presumption of a registered document's validity, including a PoA, can be drawn despite its non-production and non-compliance with statutory authentication requirements, especially when the principal resided in a foreign country. Finally, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, restoring the trial court's dismissal of the suit. It ruled that statutory presumption regarding PoA's existence and regularity cannot be drawn without its production and strict compliance with the Registration Act's authentication provisions, particularly when executed in a foreign country. The court also highlighted the plaintiff's conduct of executing multiple sale deeds based on an unproduced PoA as doubtful.