Filing of subsequent suit barred.

G. Ramanujam, J.

1. An interesting question of law has arisen in this case and that question of law is whether a suit for specific performance of a contract of sale is barred by the provisions of the Registration Act for the reason that the plaintiff who had obtained a sale deed has failed to agitate his rights to have the document compulsorily registered under the provisions of that Act.

2. For a fuller consideration and appreciation of the said question of law, it is necessary to set out briefly the facts of this case: The fourth defendant in O.S. No. 1779 of 1974 on the file of the District Munsif's Court of Tindivanam is the appellant herein. The said suit has been filed by the first respondent herein for specific performance of a contract of sale entered into between the plaintiff and defendants 1 to

3. The plaintiff's case was as follows:

3. The suit properties belonged to the joint family consisting of defendants 1 to 3. The first defendant, in order to discharge antecedent debts had executed a sale deed (Exhibit A-3) in favour of the plaintiff for himself and on behalf of his minor sons, defendants 2 and 3 for a sum of Rs. 2,500 on 29th August, 1974. The sale deed was written on a stamp paper and the first defendant has signed the document both for himself and on behalf of his minor sons. The first defendant after executing the sale deed refused to register the same when called upon by the plaintiff. Thereafter, the first defendant had executed an antedated sale deed Exhibit B-1 in respect of the suit properties in favour of the fourth defendant and had it registered on 30th August, 1974. The sale (Exhibit B-1) in favour of the fourth defendant is not valid and not binding on the plaintiff. The plaintiff later presented the sale deed (Exhibit A-3) in his favour for compulsory registration before the Sub-Registrar, Gingee. The Sub-Registrar issued summons to defendants 1 to 3 and as they did not appear before him as per the summons, returned the petition filed by the plaintiff on 20th September, 1974. Under these circumstances the plaintiff had no other alternative except to file the suit for specific performance of the contract of sale in his favour claiming relief both against defendants 1 to 3 as also the fourth defendant, the subsequent transferee of the suit properties.

4. The suit was resisted by the first defendant raising the following contentions: The plaintiff is not entitled to specific performance from the civil Court. The plaintiff should have preferred an appeal to the District Registrar, Gingee within thirty days from the date of the Sub-Registrar's order returning his application for compulsory registration. The plaintiff not having done so, the suit for specific performance is not maintainable. Defendants 1 to 3 have not executed any sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. The sale deed produced by the plaintiff is not true. The plaintiff administered arrack to the first defendant and when the first defendant was in an intoxicated state the plaintiff obtained the signatures on blank papers and fabricated a sale deed. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of specific performance in the suit.

5. The fourth defendant, the subsequent transferee of the suit properties under Exhibit B-l, dated 11th July, 1974, contended as follows : The first defendant did not execute the sale deed, Exhibit A-3 in favour of the plaintiff on 29th August, 1974, in respect of the suit properties as alleged in the plaint. The sale is not true and valid. She being a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of the, alleged prior sale (Exhibit A-3) in favour of the plaintiff, her rights should not be affected.

6. On these rival contentions the trial Court framed the following five issues:

(1) Whether sale to plaintiff by defendants 1 to 3 is true?

(2) Whether plaintiff is entitled to relief of specific performance?

(3) Whether suit as framed is not maintainable?

(4) Whether sale to fourth defendant by defendants 1 to