Scope of suit is confined to validity of documents and not to its due execution.

The defendant in O.S.No.105 of 1983 on the file of the Subordinate Judges Court, Madurai is the appellant in the second appeal. The respondent herein filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of two items of properties, namely, two cents in R.S.No.79/9 and 1 acre, 39 cents with well in R.S.No.51/2 situate in Vanjinagaram Village in Melur North Panchayat Union within Dindigul registration District on the following averments: Suit items originally belonged to the family of the appellant. The properties went out the family pursuant to some court sale in E.P.No.227 of 1978 in O.S.No.121 of 1968 on the file of the District Munsifs Court, Melur. The court auction purchaser one Meyyappa Chettiar sold the properties to the respondent on 211. 1971 for R.1,500. The appellant had been nurturing a desire for a long time to get back the properties by means fair or foul. Item No.1 though registered as nanja where few crops were raised was a house site. As regards item No.2, the appellant had properties on the west and the north and there was also copious supply of water in the well in item No.2. The appellant wanted the respondent to sell the properties to him. Respondent refused. On 11. 1981, while the respondent was doing agricultural operations, the appellant with his henchmen interfered in the possession of the respondent necessitating his filing O.S.No.607 of 1981 before District Munsifs Court, Melur. He also filed I.A.No.727 of 1981 and obtained an order of injunction against the appellant. At the time of filing the present suit, injunction was still in force. Because of this, the appellant set up his tenant one Mahalingam to give trouble to the respondent. A complaint was given by Mahalingam under Prevention of Atrocities (Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe) Act before the Special Magistrates Court, Madurai. This petition was dismissed on 19. 1982. In the suit O.S.No.607 of 1981, the appellant had been taking time for filing written statement and ultimately filed the written statement setting up an agreement of sale dated 13. 1980 between the respondent and the appellant. Those averments in the written statement were all false. He stated in the written statement as if the respondent had agreed to sell the properties to the appellant for Rs.3,350 and on 13. 1980 a sum of Rs.1,350 was paid as advance. The appellant also set up a fraudulent sale deed dated 212. 1981 as if it had been executed by the respondent. It was recited in the sale deed that on the date of execution of the sale deed, Rs.1,500 was paid and the balance of Rs.500 was agreed to be paid on the date of registration. The market value in the sale deed was given as Rs.6,800 and the property was to be sold for only Rs.3,350 which itself would show that the sale set up on 212. 1981 was fraudulent. The signature of the respondent had been forged and the appellants own men were made to attest. The appellant appeared to have presented the document for registration before the Sub Registrar on 14. 1982. A notice was issued to the respondent who appeared before the Sub Registrar and he denied having executed any document. The respondent had no need to sell any property. The Sub Registrar having refused, the appellant had applied to the District Registrar, Dindigul. The respondent was summoned and before the District Registrar, the recital in the documents was concealed from his sight and only portions containing the respondents signatures were shown and the respondent had to admit his signature on the basis of which the document was registered. Merely because the respondent had admitted his signature in the document, it could not be considered to be a true document. The application given by the respondent to the District Registrar for comparison of his admitted signature with his signature in the sale agreement and the sale deed was rejected. Again in O.S.No.607 of 1981, in the counter, in the I.A. and in the written statement, it was stated that po