Certificate of registration is prime facie evidence of execution.

S.S. Subramani, J.

1. Defendants 2 to 5 in O.S.No. 5097 of 1985 on the file of VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras are the appellants before this Court.

2. The material facts necessary for disposal of this appeal could be summarised thus: One R.N. Danapal Mudaliar was the owner of the plaint schedule property. He left his widow Philomina Ammal, Maria Soosai, R.N.K. Sundaram, Papoo Ammal and Abirami Soosai, as his legal heirs. Defendants 1 to 5 in the suit are the children of Papoo Ammal, one of the daughter of Danapal Mudaliar. Plaintiffs and 8th defendant are the children of R.N.K. Sundaram, one of the sons of deceased acquirer.

3. It is the case of plaintiff that late Danapal Mudaliar died intestate. On the death of his widow Philomina Ammal, entire plaint property devolved on their two daughters and two sons in equal shares, plaintiffs haying entitled to 1/4th share in the plaint property. It is their further case that documents have been created by defendants as if their late father R.N.K. Sundaram released his right over the property in favour of first defendant in the case. Though the document is dated 17. 19 48, the same seems to be registered only on 17. 1954, that means after six years and consequently, it violates the mandatory provisions of Section 23 of Indian Registration Act.

.4. It is also alleged that on the basis of Ex.B-1, defendants are not getting any exclusive right nor the rights of their late father is taken away. Notices were issued to defendants to effect partition by metes and bounds without taking into consideration the so called release deed dated 17. 1948. Since they have refused to do so, this suit was filed claiming partition of 1.4th share in the plaint schedule property.

5. Eighth defendant, who is one of the sons of R.N.K. Sundaram filed written statement supporting the claim of plaintiffs.

6. Other defendants disputed the claim of plaintiffs. All the defendants admit the relationship of plaintiff with Danapal Mudaliar. It is their case that on 17. 1954. all the then legal heirs of late Danapal Mudaliar executed a release deed in favour of first defendant and first defendant alone is the exclusive owner of entire property. They also pleaded that during the year 1948, a draft was prepared for execution of release deed and the same was taken by late R.N.K. Sundaram. Though he did not sign the draft, it was approved by him. During that time, he was employed at Coimbatore. Since property is situated at Madras, registration has to be effected only at Madras. Therefore, there was some delay in registering the document.

.7. It is also said that only when first defendants father also died in 1953, it was decided to have the deed registered. All the legal heirs of late Danapal Mudaliar assembled in the plaint property and sub-registrar was asked to register the document. The reason why release deed was executed was also stated in the written statement. Original acquirer had executed a will wherein it was provided that immovable properties go to their sons. One of the sons filed a suit for partition as O.S.No. 64 of 1944. Each of the sons were given properties works Rs. 8,200. But when the plaint property was valued, it came to Rs. 12,000. But it was decided that these properties must be taken by late Danapal Mudaliar on condition that he will pay the excess amount to other legal heirs. One of the legal heirs were not amenable to the suggestion and she objected to the valuation made by the Commissioner in that case fixing value at Rs. 12,000. Danapal Mudaliar had to pursue those legal heirs to withdraw the objection and for the said purpose he paid Rs. 3,000 more for the same. Therefore, he had to pay excess of Rs. 6,000. Danapal Mudaliar was not in a position to pay the amount and that amount was paid by first defendants mother through her husband who was then an officer in Madras Port Trust. At the time when the amount was paid, it was agreed that property will be assigned