The legal principle established is that oral evidence to rescind a registered document is inadmissible under Section 92 of the Evidence Act.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by the defendants in a suit for possession of a house conveyed by them under a registered sale deed to the plaintiff. Out of the consideration of Rs. 800/- mentioned in the sale deed Rs. 400/- was paid on the date of the document. Towards the balance of Rs. 400/- Rs. 185/was payable at the time of registration and Rs. 215/- had to be paid to one Nanjundaradhya a prior mortgagee of the property. Exhibit E is the sale deed dated 19/2/1944 and Exhibit E (1) is the consideration receipt for payment of Rs. 400/- executed by the defendants on the same day. Possession of the property was not delivered to the plaintiff and one of the terms of the sale deed is that the defendants could remain in possession of the same for 3 months within which they had to construct a new residence. The defendants while admitting the execution of the sale deed and the consideration receipt pleaded that the sale was cancelled by means of the document, Exhibit i, dated 8/5/1944 wherein the plaintiff admitted repayment of Rs. 400/- paid by him on the date of sale and that the sale was cancelled. He also promised not to present the sale deed for registration. Exhibit II is the receipt for repayment of Rs. 400/ -. In spite of the agreement contained in Exhibit I, the sale deed was presented for registration by the plaintiff on 22/6/1944 and in spite of the defendants' statements before the Sub-Registrar that the plaintiff had agreed not to get the document registered after taking back Rs. 400/- from them, the document was registered on 22/11/1944. The suit from which this appeal arises was filed on 12-2-1945. The learned Munsiff dismissed the suit upholding the defendants' plea; but on appeal the learned Additional Subordinate Judge reversed this decision and granted a decree to the plaintiff.

( 2 ) ALTHOUGH the plaintiff in the pleadings totally denied haying executed Exhibits I and II and having received Rs. 400/- from the defendants, the finding of the learned Munsiff that these documents are genuine has to be preferred to that of the learned Subordinate Judge taking a contrary view. In the first place the observation of the learned Subordinate Judge that although the thumb impression contained in Exhibit I is that of the plaintiff, as spoken to by the Finger print Expert and the witnesses, it was fixed to a blank paper later on filled up by the defendants is not warranted by the evidence on record. In the second place, no such plea was raised at all in the pleadings or suggested in the course of the trial. On the other hand, the question put at the end of the examination of D. W. 2 as to whether it was not so obtained implies that the plaintiff must have executed it. The evidence of D. Ws. 2 and 3 is not shown to be untrustworthy. The illness of the plaintiff which necessitated his being an in-patient in the hospital a few days after the execution of Exhibit I does not render his having executed Exhibits I and II impossible on the date these bear. We are, therefore, of opinion that exhibits I and II are genuine and the plaintiff must have received Rs. 400/ -. This is not, however, sufficient to help the defendants to successfully resist the claim. Exhibit E is a registered document and it is common ground that on the date it was executed money was paid by the plaintiff and was received by the defendants and that the intention of the parties was that it should be an effective transaction. It is only on a subsequent date that an arrangement was entered into to cancel the sale. Unfortunately the terms agreed upon for cancellation as set forth in Exhibit E (Sic) cannot prevail over the sale deed for the reason that while the sale deed is registered, Exhibits I and II were unregistered. The mere fact that the defendants mentioned to the Sub-Registrar that the money had been received and the plaintiff had agreed not to present the document for registration cannot take away the legal effect of Exhibit E. It Is curious that