The central legal point established in the judgment is the exhaustive provisions of Sec. 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, which require a valid sale to be either by a registered instrument or by delivery of possession, and the necessity of delivery of possession for a valid sale.

(Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of C.P.C. against the Order and Decree dated 13.03.2002 made in I.A.No.233 of 2003 in O.S.No.175 of 1998 on the file of District Munsif Court, Kovilpatti.)

This Revision is directed against the Order of the District Munsif, Kovilpatti made in I.A.No.233 of 2003 in O.S.No.175 of 1998 dated 13.03.2002 dismissing the Application filed by the Defendants under Section 151 C.P.C. and declining to admit an unregistered Sale Deed dated 15.06.1907. The Defendants are the Revision Petitioners.

2. Suit O.S.No.175 of 1998 was filed by the Plaintiffs relating to 1.71 acres in S.No.59/1 and two cents in S.No.59/3. Case of the Plaintiffs is that the Suit Property originally belonged to one Perumal. Plaintiffs claimed right and title through the descendants of the said Perumal (Legal Heirs through Mahalingam) by purchase under the Sale Deed dated 25.08.1993. According to the Plaintiffs, they are in possession and enjoyment of the Suit Property since the date of purchase. To claim false right in the Suit Property, the Second Defendant had created a document in favour of the First Defendant on 11.03.1998. The alleged Sale Deed in favour of D-1 is not valid and not binding upon the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs and their Predecessors-in-title is in possession and enjoyment of the Suit Property for more than thirty years. On the above allegations, Plaintiffs have filed the Suit for Declaration and for Permanent Injunction.

3. The First Defendant has filed the Written Statement contending that the Property belonged to Subbaiyan, son of Perumal (a different Perumal other than the one referred to in the Plaint). The Second Defendant- Easwaran, who is the son of the said Subbaiyan became entitled to Suit items of Properties. The First Defendant had purchased the Suit Properties from the Second Defendant – Easwaran by a Sale Deed dated 11.03.1998 for valid consideration. Pursuant to the Sale Deed, the First Defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the Suit Property. Earlier the Plaintiffs' Predecessors-in-title have filed O.S.No.180 of 1993 before the District Munsif Court, Kovilpatti. The Plaintiffs' Predecessors-in-title have reported that the Suit has been settled out of Court and the said Suit was dismissed as settled out of Court.

4. On the above pleading, issues were framed and the parties went on trial. The Plaintiffs' witnesses were examined and cross examined. On the side of the Defendants, D.W.s - 1 and 2 were examined. At that stage, I.A.No.233 of 2003 was filed by the Defendants to recall DW-2 to admit the document - an unregistered Sale Deed dated 15.06.1907. According to the Defendants, under the said document, the Second Defendant's father, Subbaiyan, had purchased the Suit Properties from one Pooludayar and the document is an essential document for proving the defence.

5. The above Application was strongly resisted by the Plaintiffs alleging that the said document though a Sale Deed for consideration of less than Rs.100/-, the document is inadmissible in evidence for want of registration. Since the document is unregistered, the document cannot be admitted in evidence for any purpose and the Application to recall D.W-2 cannot be allowed.

6. The learned District Munsif, Kovilpatti dismissed the Application finding that the document though a Sale Deed for consideration of less than Rs.100/- being reduced into writing, ought to have been registered. Referring to AIR 1928 Madras page 546 (Kuppuswami V. Chinnaswami) the Lower Court found that the document of Sale when reduced into writing being unregistered is inadmissible in evidence. The Lower Court elaborately discussed Sec.49 and Sec.17 of the Registration Act and also Sec.54 of the Transfer of Property Act in arriving at the conclusion that the document being a sale, which is compulsorily registrable, is being unregistered, is inadmissible in evidence.

7. Aggrieved over the dismissal of the Application to recall D.W-2 for the purpose