JUDGMENT :

B.S. Chauhan, J.

These appeals have been preferred against the impugned judgment and decree dated 16.7.2003 passed by the High Court of Madras in A.S. No. 1104 of 1987 and Transferred A.S. No. 1120 of 2001, wherein it has set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court which had decreed the suit of the appellant and dismissed the suit of the respondent No.1.

2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are :

A. The contesting parties are the son and the daughter of late B.P. Sandy. Though late B.P. Sandy had several children, considering his old age, he decided to transfer/settle his two houses bearing Nos. 22 and 23, Peria Palli Street, Raja Annamalai Puram, Chennai-28 in favour of his youngest son and daughter (the contesting parties herein) respectively. Therefore, the father of the parties executed two registered settlement deeds on 27.8.1981 bearing Nos. 1690/81 and 1691/81 at the office of Sub-Registrar, Mylapore, Chennai, transferring House No. 23 in the name of his daughter (Respondent No. 1) and House No. 22 in the name of his son (Appellant).

B. It is alleged by the appellant that the father of the parties had only at a later point of time realised that the House No. 23 which was given to the daughter, ought to have been given to him and House No. 22 to the daughter. Thus, the parties to give effect to the real intention of their father decided to exchange the properties given to them, and in furtherance thereof, executed a Agreement Deed to exchange the same on 1.6.1982. The said document was witnessed by Sheila Doss and Mrs. Mary Doss, who were neighbours and teachers and colleagues of the daughter - respondent No. 1. Since, the said agreement dated 1.6.1982 (Ex. A-3) had not been given effect to by the respondent No. 1, the appellant filed O.S. No. 6331 of 1983 on 12.9.1983 in the court of City Civil Judge, Chennai, for issuance of direction to the defendant/respondent No. 1, to execute a Deed of Rectification and further to restrain her from interference with the appellant's possession of the suit property. During the pendency of this suit, Shri B.P. Sandy and the appellant executed a Rectification Deed (Ex.A-6) on 8.10.1983 by which property in Door No. 23 was given to the appellant. The said deed was signed by two witnesses Susan Muthu and A. Bernard. The respondent No. 1/defendant filed suit O.S. No. 415 of 1984 before the same court for declaration that the agreement dated 1.6.1982 (Ex. A-3), an unregistered document, was null and void, being a forged document, and that she has under undue influence put her signature on the blank non-judicial stamp papers.

C. The trial court decided both the suits together vide judgment and decree dated 21.8.1986 by way of which the appellant's suit was decreed and that of respondent No. 1 was dismissed.

D. Aggrieved, the respondent No. 1 filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, however, it was subsequently transferred to the High Court and the High Court has allowed both the appeals filed by respondent No. 1.

It may also be pertinent to mention here that during the pendency of the appeals, the appellant got the Trial Court decree executed through the court and subsequently sold the property No. 23 to the respondent No. 2.

Hence, these appeals.

3. Shri R. Balasubramanian, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, has submitted that the High Court has committed an error in interpreting the statutory provisions of law and it was not necessary, that the agreement between the parties, tantamount to an agreement to sell, may be a registered document as required under Section 17 of the Registration Act or by any provision of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the High Court erred in holding the Ex. A-3 was inadmissible and inoperative in law. Once the document (Ex. A-3) had been admitted in the evidence without any objection being raised, its contents were bound to be admitted and relied upon. In fact, the said document had been ex